Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

popehat.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 231 posts

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#101

Post by dmurray »

tptacek wrote: post #24
Analemma_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty fucked up that if I’m being defamed, I can’t do anything about it if the person defaming me is mentally ill. Do I just have to sit there and watch my reputation go down the shitter, with potential loss of jobs, income, etc.? That doesn’t seem like a workable system to me.

In the US, you're not being defamed until someone relates a damaging false fact. This particular defendant has, apparently, only said that the Tarot deck told her the plaintiff was a murderer. That's not a fact. It's like saying "in my opinion, you're a murderer". You're allowed to do that.

> That's not a fact.

It may well be a fact. But it's a fact about the Tarot cards, not the professor. I don't think the case would be materially different if the cards required less interpretation, e.g. if she had instead consulted a Magic 8-ball which told her the professor was the murderer "without a doubt".

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#103

Post by kukkeliskuu »

I would ask the Tarot reader if he/she believes he/she is telling a fact or an opinion. First would make him/her liable, but second would probably hurt their business.

Tarot cards are very interesting by the way. Jung’s archetypes are based on major arcana cards, and as most personality tests (such as MBTI) are based on Jung’s theories, actually the HR department is kind of playing Tarot when they make you take personality tests.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#104

Post by gnopgnip »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #94
gnopgnip wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes in some cases this is a factor. In CA, from the 1703 Defamation per quod civil jury instruction notes, That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the statement(s) [was/were] about [name of plaintiff] And “If [a] defamatory meaning would appear only to readers who might be able to recognize it through some knowledge of specific facts and/or circumstances, not discernible from the face of the public…

Interesting. So imagine I combine some niche industry terms to call you something nasty - say, "init forker" - and make it a statement of fact, though one that's hard to discern even for insiders, much less for the general audience. But it so happens that you're an influencer on the side. You make an angry Tiktok video whining about me. Then someone in your audience makes a YouTube commentary about it. Then someone e…

Yes the legal system in CA requires that at least one person other than the person being insulted here understands it is a defamatory statement made in writing for a a libel per quod case. It doesn't require the general public or a theoretical reasonable person would understand it, but then as a practical matter unless many who received the message understand it the damages would be minimal and it wouldn't be worth a civil case.

And it still needs to meet all the other requirements, the statement needs to be provably false. Not just an opinion, not a substantially true statement, that the statements were made(in writing) to someone other than who they were about, there were actual damages and they damages were substantially caused by the libelous writing. Showing actual damages in a defamation case is hard

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#105

Post by glandium »

niemandhier wrote: post #84

Interestingly the statement that “ defamation requires a provably false statement of fact “ is not true in all jurisdictions. German law makes a distinction between „Verleumdung“ which is indeed like defamation and “üble Nachrede“, which only requires a statement to not be probably true.

In Japan, defamation doesn't require falsehood. Yes, you can be punished for defamation for having told the truth!

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#106

Post by Joker_vD »

bawolff wrote: post #58
thaumasiotes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could generate evidence that they came to a conclusion most other Tarot readers wouldn't have come to, though even that would be very difficult. But that would be irrelevant against the defense "I have a superior understanding of how to read the messages in the cards than other people do". Which seems like a pretty likely defense. If you can prosecute "the cards told me X is the murderer", you can also prosecute…

> If you can prosecute "the cards told me X is the murderer", you can also prosecute "God told me X is the murderer"; they are identical claims. Can't you prosecute the latter though? Its not like freedom of religion is a get out of jail free card. Like you can't murder someone and then say $deity made me do it.

> Like you can't murder someone and then say $deity made me do it.

Well. I would imagine something like that actually happened in the days of the early colonies: Bob kills Alice, claims she was a witch and the God revealed it to him, the juries agree that Alice was actually a pretty shifty woman, and the Bob goes away with a fine for unlicensed witch hunting^W^W^W vigilantism.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#107

Post by sschueller »

glandium wrote: post #105
niemandhier wrote: post #84

Interestingly the statement that “ defamation requires a provably false statement of fact “ is not true in all jurisdictions. German law makes a distinction between „Verleumdung“ which is indeed like defamation and “üble Nachrede“, which only requires a statement to not be probably true.

In Japan, defamation doesn't require falsehood. Yes, you can be punished for defamation for having told the truth!

How can a society function like that when any wealthy person can just sue you for saying anything?

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#108

Post by alkonaut »

sschueller wrote: post #107
glandium wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Japan, defamation doesn't require falsehood. Yes, you can be punished for defamation for having told the truth!

How can a society function like that when any wealthy person can just sue you for saying anything?

I think that you said “any wealthy person” is telling. That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that?

As for the defamation itself, it’s no more “anything” that can be defamatory even though there is no requirement of falsehood. The intent to defame is still required. Most publications will fail that test (any journalism/public interest etc).

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#109

Post by ejb999 »

alkonaut wrote: post #108
sschueller wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can a society function like that when any wealthy person can just sue you for saying anything?

I think that you said “any wealthy person” is telling. That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that? As for the defamation itself, it’s no more “anything” that can be defamatory even though there is no requirement of falsehood. The intent to defame is still required. Most publications will fail that test (any journalism/public interest etc).

>>That you expect that the law is a tool available to the wealthy. Why would it be like that?

Its really not that complicated - wealthy people can hire lawyers to sue someone, poor and middle-class people not so much.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#110

Post by 082349872349872 »

kukkeliskuu wrote: post #103

I would ask the Tarot reader if he/she believes he/she is telling a fact or an opinion. First would make him/her liable, but second would probably hurt their business. Tarot cards are very interesting by the way. Jung’s archetypes are based on major arcana cards, and as most personality tests (such as MBTI) are based on Jung’s theories, actually the HR department is kind of playing Tarot when they make you take perso…

Second doesn't seem to have hurt Fox News' business.

> Fox News seeks dismissal at the pleading stage on two constitutional grounds. First, it asserts that Mr. Carlson’s statements on the December 10, 2018, episode of his show are constitutionally protected opinion commentary on matters of public importance and are not reasonably understood as being factual.

====

Can a statement made by an LLM be defamatory?

"Ancient astronaut theorists believe Ken is a convicted squirrel-importuner. What if it were true?"

Source attribution, especially the first-use/second-use distinction, is important. cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34184013

Post reply on HN