IMO this is the one place our forefathers dropped the ball. The onus should always be on the publisher to prove they didn’t act maliciously, rather than the person who was harmed having to prove they did.

Mostly because trying to prove intent is extremely difficult, almost like proving a negative, and without a confession or secret recording it’s almost impossible to prove they acted maliciously just to harm you. “It’s just an opinion, man” is the common defense.

The Hulk Hogan case was easy, they had a court order and Gawker still refused to remove the video. That’s obvious malicious conduct to cause harm. That shouldn’t be the bar that has to be reached for redress, especially if you’re fighting against false allegations, because you’re forced to revictimize yourself in the court of public opinion to seek justice.

IMO this is the one place our forefathers dropped the ball. The onus should always be on the publisher to prove they didn’t act maliciously, rather than the person who was harmed having to prove they did.

Mostly because trying to prove intent is extremely difficult, almost like proving a negative, and without a confession or secret recording it’s almost impossible to prove they acted maliciously just to harm you.

The Hulk Hogan case was easy, they had a court order and Gawker still refused to remove the video. That’s obvious malicious conduct. That shouldn’t be the bar that has to be reached for redress, especially if you’re fighting against false allegations, because you’re forced to revictimize yourself in the court of public opinion to seek justice.