As cathartic as seeing "Jack Dorsey Sued" in a headline is, this is a lawsuit that will go nowhere. There are no cognizable damages that the repairman will be able to assert from calling him a hacker.
Damages are presumed with libel so he wouldn't have to prove cognizable damages. Even so, he does mention receiving harm to his business and receiving threats. But I do agree with you that it will go nowhere regardless.
Damages are not presumed in defamation cases, that's 100% backward. Damages are only presumed in defamation per se cases, which are very narrowly defined as a statement that shows a reckless disregard for the truth. One of the four factors that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail in a defamation case is actual damages caused by the defendant's false statement of fact. This just doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that standard. That's not even to mention the fact that he's claiming that Twitter banning the NY Post for a TOS violation is defamation against him, which no court in the country would buy. Any damages were caused because the NY Post effectively doxxed him by posting a picture of the front of the business in relation to this story.
And despite not being able to show damages, they likely won't be able to succeed on the first point, that Twitter referencing the material as "hacked" was a false statement of fact. Arguing technical definitions of what "hacked" means is not a winning strategy when people colloquially use the term hacked for accessing the material of others, regardless of a legal right. Police can have a warrant to legally access your phone and it would still be common use of the term hacked to say they hacked into the phone to get the material.
This is a loser case. This is a lawyer grifting for money and headlines.
Most jurisdictions consider any form of libel to be libel per se, and therefore damages are in fact presumed. And what you stated is not wholly what defamation per se is. Defamation per se (and libel and slander per se) are statements that fall into 1 of four categories: statements that allege the plaintiff engaged in an act or crime of moral turpitude, the plaintiff has a disease, the plaintiff is unchaste, or the plaintiff engaged in behavior that adversely affects their business professionalism. Whether the statements was made with reckless disregard for the truth applies to dealing with public figures and statements of public concern. This likely would be a statement of public concern concerning a private figure, in which case making the statement with a reckless disregard for the truth can be used to show damages, yes. However, the calling him a "hacker" at the very least is a statement that adversely reflects his business acumen, and might additionally fall under a statement regarding moral turpitude, and therefore defamation per se would be met and actual damages would not need to be shown.
Furthermore, you are making wild presumptions about what a court would or would not buy. The statement in question needs to identify the plaintiff to a reasonable person. If the NY Post received the material in question from the repairmen, and Twitter removed the post for containing hacked material, then logically, Twitter is claiming the repairmen received the material through hacking. This clearly identifies the repairmen as a hacker in this instance. Lastly, I don't know where you get the idea that arguing "technical" definitions is a losing strategy. Almost all legal case law is derived from arguing the technical meanings of words in our laws. It doesn't matter how most people use a word if they're using it incorrectly unless the word has become so far removed from its original definition, which "hacking" has not. I still don't think this case is going anywhere, but it's far from frivolous.
The closest proximate cause was the NY Post doxxing his business by putting it in the story. The people harassing his business would have done it regardless of Twitter banning the NY Post article.
That he had damages doesn't mean the person you sue caused them.
As cathartic as seeing "Jack Dorsey Sued" in a headline is, this is a lawsuit that will go nowhere. There are no cognizable damages that the repairman will be able to assert from calling him a hacker.
Damages are presumed with libel so he wouldn't have to prove cognizable damages. Even so, he does mention receiving harm to his business and receiving threats. But I do agree with you that it will go nowhere regardless.
Damages are not presumed in defamation cases, that's 100% backward. Damages are only presumed in defamation per se cases, which are very narrowly defined as a statement that shows a reckless disregard for the truth. One of the four factors that a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail in a defamation case is actual damages caused by the defendant's false statement of fact. This just doesn't come anywhere close to meeting that standard. That's not even to mention the fact that he's claiming that Twitter banning the NY Post for a TOS violation is defamation against him, which no court in the country would buy. Any damages were caused because the NY Post effectively doxxed him by posting a picture of the front of the business in relation to this story.
And despite not being able to show damages, they likely won't be able to succeed on the first point, that Twitter referencing the material as "hacked" was a false statement of fact. Arguing technical definitions of what "hacked" means is not a winning strategy when people colloquially use the term hacked for accessing the material of others, regardless of a legal right. Police can have a warrant to legally access your phone and it would still be common use of the term hacked to say they hacked into the phone to get the material.
This is a loser case. This is a lawyer grifting for money and headlines.
Most jurisdictions consider any form of libel to be libel per se, and therefore damages are in fact presumed. And what you stated is not wholly what defamation per se is. Defamation per se (and libel and slander per se) are statements that fall into 1 of four categories: statements that allege the plaintiff engaged in an act or crime of moral turpitude, the plaintiff has a disease, the plaintiff is unchaste, or the plaintiff engaged in behavior that adversely affects their business professionalism. Whether the statements was made with reckless disregard for the truth applies to dealing with public figures and statements of public concern. This likely would be a statement of public concern concerning a private figure, in which case making the statement with a reckless disregard for the truth can be used to show damages, yes. However, the calling him a "hacker" at the very least is a statement that adversely reflects his business acumen, and might additionally fall under a statement regarding moral turpitude, and therefore defamation per se would be met and actual damages would not need to be shown.
Furthermore, you are making wild presumptions about what a court would or would not buy. The statement in question needs to identify the plaintiff to a reasonable person. If the NY Post received the material in question from the repairmen, and Twitter removed the post for containing hacked material, then logically, Twitter is claiming the repairmen received the material through hacking. This clearly identifies the repairmen as a hacker in this instance. Lastly, I don't know where you get the idea that arguing "technical" definitions is a losing strategy. Almost all legal case law is derived from arguing the technical meanings of words in our laws. It doesn't matter how most people use a word if they're using it incorrectly unless the word has become so far removed from its original definition, which "hacking" has not. I still don't think this case is going anywhere, but it's far from frivolous.
Other than his business being destroyed, forcing him to retool as a carpenter
No biggie
None of which was caused by calling him a hacker.
Ok, then what destroyed his life? A lightning strike? Alcohol? Porn addiction - oh wait, that might be from the laptop too...
The closest proximate cause was the NY Post doxxing his business by putting it in the story. The people harassing his business would have done it regardless of Twitter banning the NY Post article.
That he had damages doesn't mean the person you sue caused them.