Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#131

Post by sweetjuly » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 12:12 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #110

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…

Can a statement made by

     [chr(random()&0xFF) for i in range(100)]

be defamatory? With low probability, it may make sentences that appear as statements of fact but, as the article mentions, anyone familiar with the "speaker" (in this case python or in yours LLMs), knows that it's random nonsense.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#132

Post by SuoDuanDao » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 12:22 PM UTC

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…

As someone who reads Tarot for friends, and may do so professionally in the new year, it depends a lot on the reading and the type of reading. Any reading that offers advice is opinion, but some opinions should be stated with more confidence than others. Given identical cards I might tell one person "Get out, he'll hurt you if you stay!" and another "I'm not sure this relationship is right for you, if you stay there's a good chance you'll get hurt" depending on how the reading unfolds.

The kind of questions people bring to a tarot reader are of necessity the kind where there's no obvious way to determine facts. If my intuition told me to say the first reading and the client asked if that was a fact or my opinion I'd probably give an estimate of my confidence.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#133

Post by _yb2s » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:05 PM UTC

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…

Jungian archetypes and MBTI are being widely misunderstood and misused, e.g. by HR departments.

The purpose is to understand how the individual sees themselves consciously. This is then a tool for that person to begin exploring and understanding the parts of themselves that are opposite of that, the parts they reject because they don’t identify with, e.g. the persons “shadow.” It’s a tool for personal inner growth and not suitable for categorizing other people the way it’s used in HR.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#134

Post by fi358 » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:12 PM UTC

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!

In Finland defamation doesn't (always) require falsehood either and I think the same is true in Sweden as well. However, you are much more likely to get a conviction if the statement you made is a lie. And there has to be also the intent to insult or intent to make other people to despise the victim.

And even non-verbal acts can be defamation. For example showing middle finger to somebody can be defamation and I have heard that using gardening hose to make other person wet could also be defamation.

There is also one other crime in the Finnish law that can make it crime to tell true facts called "yksityiselämää loukkaava tiedon levittäminen" (which means basically spreading information in a way that it violates persons privacy). For example writing in a newspaper that "a woman was molested by her father and now has HIV" could lead to a conviction even if all the facts are true, if that woman has not wanted to make this information public and if readers are able to recognize who this woman is.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#135

Post by mannykannot » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

gnopgnip wrote: post #81

mbg721 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have anywhere near the background expertise that you do, but surely there's some kind of "reasonable person" standard at some point, right? Or is that just for juries in criminal trials?

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…

Indeed, and the article says this:

'In determining whether the audience is likely to interpret a statement as one of fact or one of opinion or hyperbole, courts consider a viewpoint of an audience familiar with the speaker, the forum, and the circumstances. Scofield asserts that Guillard is known for “solving” mysteries based on tarot and “readings.” Doesn’t that mean that an audience familiar with her is more likely to interpret anything she says as premised on occult readings, and not on some undisclosed actual evidence?'

With regard to the last sentence, I would argue that the target audience is likely to see no difference here, and what's more, regard the statements as being based on disclosed actual evidence.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#136

Post by pvg » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:34 PM UTC

maxbond wrote: post #90

pvg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in there Avoid generic tangents.

I don't think generic tangents should be taken to include relevant tangents . I read this part of the guidelines (in context, with the surrounding language about flamebaits & tropes) as being about using something tangentially related as an excuse to pivot the conversation to your pet issue, not as forbidding you to add color to a conversation. That doesn't seem at all compatible with promoting curious conversation.…

I mean, they're table manners for a nerd messageboard so a lot more subjective than defamation law. You can always reverse engineer something out of them explaining the quality (or lack thereof) of some specific comment, after the fact.

Less subjective are the effects and you can see them here - if a comment mostly produces corrections and rules lawyering, it's not a great comment and fills up the thread with meta and fluff.

To take an even broader view - if the goal of the forum is curious conversation, good toplevel comments have to look like invitations to curious conversation to others. If others perceive the comment as reply guy well-actually-ing, the possible positive intent one can extract from it armed with the guidelines and a cheese cloth doesn't matter that much.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#137

Post by lifeisstillgood » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:44 PM UTC

So, if I randomly generate headlines of varying rabid mania, I am not liable for defamation because I know they are random rubbish, but I still get the ad revenue ?

Isn't this the business model for all current online news sources ..

It does feel however it ought to be illegal - much like pissing in the drinking water.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#138

Post by tptacek » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:45 PM UTC

dmurray wrote: post #101

tptacek wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yes! But if you could show she consulted the Magic 8-ball and it said "Better not tell you now" and she lied and said "It is decidedly so", you might could actually sue for defamation, which is wild.

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#139

Post by tptacek » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:47 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #96

tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, you'd need to do more than change the law; you'd need to amend the Constitution.

Why do you think you'd need to do that? Why wouldn't some generous re-interpretation be enough? Or is the US constitution so specific on the matter that this is hard?

See, for instance, Hustler v. Falwell:

In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact...

Re: Can a Tarot card reading be defamatory?

#140

Post by mannykannot » Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 1:54 PM UTC

knorker wrote: post #122

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…

> I would ask the Tarot reader if he/she believes he/she is telling a fact or an opinion. I think any lawyer would easily get out of that by pointing out that the Tarot reader just reads the cards, and believes them as fact. Or should we prosecute everyone who believes Fox News / MSNBC?

I suspect your first sentence is correct. With regard to the second, however, defamation requires speech, not just belief. If repeating what some medium says is defamatory, then that medium itself would seem to be liable for defamation.