“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” Tyrion Lannister, (George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings)

[LokitheWeaver]

It is becoming apparent that certain opinions on this forum, are unwelcome, and fairly successful efforts at censorship are taking place. In my efforts to educate the community, I have put together some brief (?) information for those of you who feel the need to scream “libel” or “slander” every time you see an opinion you don’t agree with.

(After all, if you are going to take a post from this forum, to the “official” forums and accuse the OP of “Slander” you might want to know the difference. . . )

I have selected Washington State and the 9th Circuit (U.S.), since they likely have legal jurisdiction, based on the our Steam Contract / Agreement:

“Defamation in Washington state comes in two forms – libel or slander. Libel is a false statement that is printed while slander is one that is spoken to one or more people. There is a two-year statute of limitations for defamation lawsuits to be filed in Washington.” (http://kellywarnerlaw.com/washington-defamation-laws/)

Note that both require “falsity” - "Truth" is an absolute defense against defamation. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

However, “The law does not require that a statement must be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered ‘true.’” (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth)

“The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys.”(http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges)

Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2014) is an interesting read, for those of you so inclined. Two important areas - matters of public concern and the test to decide if an opinion implies a false assertion of fact (of especial relevance to the 7D2D, a game in Early Access, forums and recent postings), from that decision are included, below.

“This court has held that even consumer complaints of non-criminal conduct by a business can constitute matters of public concern. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that a business owner’s refusal to give a refund to a customer who bought an allegedly defective product was a matter of public concern)”

The 9th District uses a three part to decide if something implies a false assertion of fact. The test considers “(1) whether the general tenor of the entire work negates the impression that the defendant was asserting an objective fact, (2) whether the defendant used figurative or hyperbolic language that negates that impression, and (3) whether the statement in question is susceptible of being proved true or false.” Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153.

Enjoy.

[Vizor513]

SLANDER! BLASPHEMY! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!

then i was all like...... nahh

[Pèpè Silvia]

FFS...I'm not playing 7DaysToDie for legal history lessons...

[Dies Fourth]

NONE of that applies on a privately owned forum, they own it they make the rules, dont like it, theres the door !!

There was also a written warning before purchase so ZERO of your attempt to be " smart " applies to these forums or the status of a refund, enjoy that !

[Thundercracker]

Originally posted by Dies Fourth:

NONE of that applies on a privately owned forum, they own it they make the rules, dont like it, theres the door !!

There was also a written warning before purchase so ZERO of your attempt to be " smart " applies to these forums or the status of a refund, enjoy that !

he's not talking about the rules, he's talking about elements of the community who declare anything they dont like to read as "slander".

excellent post, as usual loki. unfortunatly, the ones who need to understand your point the most will miss it.

just yesterday i was accused of "lies, toxicity and slander" for the statement "if the lead designer bypasses a mechanic, it is a strong sign that that mechanic is in need of a rework."

Originally posted by TestSubject420247:

You can see in the progression of development, the developers going back and forth on many decisions / features. I half blame the community for pointing the developers in the wrong direction, and the other half for the developers having lost focus.

i'll have to quote the kicstarter:

We want to build more than a game we want to build a community and relationship with our customers taking input, feedback and ideas early on and working them into the game. It’s not just our game is everyone’s game!

[LokitheWeaver]

Originally posted by Dies Fourth:

NONE of that applies on a privately owned forum, they own it they make the rules, dont like it, theres the door !!

There was also a written warning before purchase so ZERO of your attempt to be " smart " applies to these forums or the status of a refund, enjoy that !

Funny thing is - "they" don't own it. Steam owns it.

And before you get in too deep, you might want to consider that a PUBLIC forum, even if created by a private party may have other "rules" to consider.

Steam sells games. The forum is to discuss games. There are specific rules governing conduct on said forum. Illegal conduct is pretty much verbotten.

Some members of the community like to frame an unpopular post as libel or slander - without actually knowing what constitutes either one. In their post they may actually end up doing what they accuse someone else of doing - publishing a statement that has the potential to injure a person's reputation in the community : )

For instance, a comment that suggests a person is engaged in illegal activity (when they are not) or that they are (or should be) wearing a tin foil hat (i.e. they are crazy / mentally deficient).

Potentially, these people were unaware. So I make an effort to provide information to allow them to make better choices. Discuss the points made by a poster vs. attacking the poster and screaming to have them censored.

[LokitheWeaver]

Originally posted by Cy-Kill:

*snip* unfortunatly, the ones who need to understand your point the most will miss it. *snip*

I expect you are right. And I suspect it is just a matter of time until the post is locked. Unfortunately I have this ethical conundrum - I teach my students that the answer to "wrong" speech is to speak "truth" vs. advocating censorship. (It was one of those students who first sent me the Lannister quote : )

If I don't "practice what I teach", that sort of undermines my position. So I spend a few hours tilting at windmills, waiting for the buffetting that will almost certainly come.

Although there is the part of me that thinks how much fun it would be to simply "report" some of those posts, which may themselves actually step over the legal line. I resist the temptation, mostly out of respect to memories of J^g^'s "moderate moderating", and knowing the headaches the issue would cause our current set of moderators.

I mean, they are in a tight spot, already. (If you consider the possible implications of locking specific threads / banning posters, for what the law might recognize as important commentary on a public concern - the reporting /discussion of non-criminal conduct of a business : )

[Hold these kitties]

Are you pointing your finger to the forum´s moderators or to the community?

[LokitheWeaver]

Originally posted by LilGingerKid:

this post is gay

Do you mean "happy" or is that a slur on individuals with a same sex attraction?

[LokitheWeaver]

Originally posted by The Sexual Bacon:

Are you pointing your finger to the forum´s moderators or to the community?

No I am not questioning the moderators actions. I specifically mentioned that I understood they have a tough job, that can sometimes put them in a difficult position. Ultimately they make the best choices they can, given the circumstances and their own personal understanding of the rules, etc.

If I am pointing any fingers, I guess it is at those in the community, who are so anxious to "help" that (through ignorance) they engage in the very behavior they are condeming.

Does that make sense? I absolutely do not agree with everything I read on this forum. If it is something that I care enough about, I will engage in discussion. Sometimes I research the area, learn something new, and try to pass that knowledge on to others in the community.

And I have, many times, posted in support of a person's ability to have a different viewpoint - what they want in the game, etc.

[Ozzy OzBorn]

You're really bored waiting for A13, huh ? :P

[Thundercracker]

by the by, loki, check your requests, you have someone there who'd like to talk to you!

[Mytheos]

@OP

You have some very odd fetish for discussing off base legal issues on forums where they are not valid or welcomed.

Please find some place more appropriate to live out your lawyer fantasies...

[Brian9824]

Once again you cannot cherry pick statements and only put in the parts of the law that work for you.

However, “The law does not require that a statement must be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered ‘true.’” this is completely wrong. The actual text is

The law does not require that a statement must be perfectly accurate in every conceivable way to be considered "true." Courts have said that some false statements must be protected for the wider purpose of allowing the dissemination of truthful speech. The resulting doctrine is known as "substantial truth." Under the substantial truth doctrine, minor factual inaccuracies will be ignored so long as the inaccuracies do not materially alter the substance or impact of what is being communicated. In other words, only the "gist" or "sting" of a statement must be correct.

I bolded the important part. So an accusation of someone cheating on a specific date can be legally upheld if the date was wrong would fall under that. The accusation of someone cheating when no cheating actually occured would not be upheld.

All the closed threads fail to meet the criteria of being substantial truth as the main points contained false information and accusations that were by admission based on no actual evidence.

if your going to play armchair lawyer then don't try to pull a fast one over people on these forums. We aren't idiots.

[Brian9824]

Originally posted by TestSubject420247:

Originally posted by brian9824:

if your going to play armchair lawyer then don't try to pull a fast one over people on these forums. We aren't idiots.

I strongly disagree.

Originally posted by brian9824:

All the closed threads fail to meet the criteria of being substantial truth as the main points contained false information and accusations that were by admission based on no actual evidence.

Again, I disagree. While some may have been closed for those reasons, there have been threads closed both here and on their official forums simply because of flame wars. Many times (not always) the actual flaming comes from "regular members" or even moderators. While sometimes the proposed argument / complaint / idea / suggestion was provided in a reasonable manner, it was attacked unreasonably and with insult. Apparently if you agree with the authority or developer, there is immunity to certain rules.

Disagree if you may, that is your entitlement. Just as I have entitlement to see it as I may.

There are "certain" threads made by certain users that are currently banned that he is referring to, and his posts are carbon copies of the format used. Those threads contain factually incorrect information, personal attacks, etc which is why they were closed.

[restarter]

agenda: sue early access, strikes again!