121–130 of 231 posts
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.
The article is almost certainly written with an eye to US defamation law. Squirrel Importunities not being an offence in lower Saxony, on a Tuesday.
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 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>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.
Someone who can't afford a lawyer can probably not be considered middle-class. That would mean they have no discretionary income to speak of.
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…
Since the cards themselves are a fact an opinion on what they mean seems to be protected. As far as I can tell it is not considered defamation as long as someone doesn't claim or suggest that this opinion is based on anything other than a card reading, which as far as I can tell is not the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is almost certainly written with an eye to US defamation law. Squirrel Importunities not being an offence in lower Saxony, on a Tuesday.
I am deeply confused by the second part of your post.
To reinforce the legal distictions of jurisdiction I implied a (fictional) legal distinction in lower Saxony on tuesdays. I should have said Thuringia, and sundays. The Regionales-Eichhörnchen-Fummel-Gesetz is remarkably large there. Like the Berlin mountain it has to be seen to be believed.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am deeply confused by the second part of your post.
Squirrel related misbehaviour is the example defamatory topic. The article mentions (fictive) squirrel laws in two US states. To reinforce the legal distictions of jurisdiction I implied a (fictional) legal distinction in lower Saxony on tuesdays. I should have said Thuringia, and sundays. The Regionales-Eichhörnchen-Fummel-Gesetz is remarkably large there. Like the Berlin mountain it has to be seen to be believed.
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'd like to have an experiment on how HN the crowd evaluates the following claims/observations. - personality tests - why not tarot, enneagram, astrology, human design, etc The most functional way to see these systems, I believe, is not as descriptive systems that need to be empirically proven to be useful. Instead, they can be used with a phenomenological attitude. Instead of objective, they are useful as pedagogica…
The problem starts when your job depends on some crazy voodoo your current HR representative believes in and you have to fit your world view into it and sell it believable. Something which is happening and Zodiac Sign incomparability is the least of those problems.
I had a big shot from the US in my former company who got the idea of forcing us into one of those "you're going to be a colour afterwards"-tests. Luckily I worked in Germany and after the initial handing out of information, the whole thing became something between a running gag and "don't even try to force me into this, I'll mess you up over privacy laws". He gave up.
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…
If I understood the article correctly they can just weasel around the issue by saying the cards present a fact but that their interpretation of it is an opinion. Since the cards themselves are a fact an opinion on what they mean seems to be protected. As far as I can tell it is not considered defamation as long as someone doesn't claim or suggest that this opinion is based on anything other than a card reading, which…