Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
But whether a word was used as an insult, with the result of damaging a person's reputation and income, is a lot easier to prove.
|
An insult is not defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. Calling someone a total utter and complete moron who isn't competent to make a peanut butter sandwich may well be insulting and damaging to their reputation -- but it isn't defamation. Calling something pornography may be damaging, but whether something is pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Further, you have to defame a person, not their work. But even if the reporter said the author is a pornographer, that's still an opinion. It's not defamatory under the law.
One of the elements of defamation is establishing that the alleged defamatory statement is false. How do you establish that the book isn't pornography? The plaintiff can get 10 experts to testify.... so can the defendant. Reasonable people differ, which is the hallmark of an opinion.
Moreover, even if you could establish a false statement of fact, you'd need to prove causation -- that the reporter's statement directly caused Amazon to remove the book. Good luck getting someone from Amazon to admit that. (The fact that one thing followed another is not causation.) The same problem would exist if the plaintiff decided to pursue a business tort theory instead of defamation.