This is the definition of "What the fuck." Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum, just because he's talking about a judge? He didn't threaten anybody.
> Why should he be careful about what he says on a forum? He didn't threaten anybody.
Like it or not, libel laws apply on-line as much as anywhere. As just one example, in 2006 a Florida woman won an $11 million verdict against a Louisiana woman who had called her a crook, a con artist, and a fraud in an on-line forum [1]. Do a Google search for "libel on-line" and you'll see lots of ads for lawyers hoping to be hired to bring a lawsuit for libel.
Incidentally, accusations like those of the GP are known as "libel per se." [2]
Another thing to consider: If you make an arguably-libelous statement on-line about a foreign citizen, that person might sue you in a "libel tourism" destination such as the UK, which until earlier this year was (and to a certain extent still is) much more friendly to libel plaintiffs than is the U.S. (Fortunately for U.S. citizens, U.S. law severely limits the enforceability in U.S. courts of a foreign libel-tourism judgment [3].)
Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form.
This is not even close to what I'm doing.
I look at the world scientifically. Hence a hypothesis and not a theory. I am asking a question and don't have hard evidence one way or the other. I have a suspicion, which is where hypothesises get started. This is not libel, it's fact finding.
Were I to call you a prevaricating snake that took bribes on your last 6 cases and were rogering the judge during tea time, then that would be libel. But I am not saying that about you because it's not true, hopefully.
I'm the first to admit I'm not a lawyer and I'm quite happy about that. It doesn't mean I'm ignorant or uneducated about things though. I also learn something new each day and am happy to be proven wrong.
"Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form."
Actually, in the US, it doesn't have to intend to cause damage to be libel (it does have to damage reputation), unless it is a public figure of some sort (in which case it requires what is known as "New York Times malice").
If you libel'd a private figure, negligently, you'd likely still be liable, though damages would likely be limited to actual harm.
> Libel applies when you are making false, damaging statements about someone in a way intended to cause damage in some form.
Look up "libel per se". Certain types of false statements are so clearly damaging that there is no requirement of malicious intent for uttering them to constitute libel. Falsely accusing someone of committing a crime, for example.
