In U.S. law, defamation is generally defined as: A false statement of fact that is communicated (published) to a third party, about a person (or sometimes a business), that harms the person’s reputation, and is made with at least a negligent level of fault regarding its truth or falsity.
Key Elements
While exact wording varies by state, most U.S. jurisdictions require the plaintiff to prove all of these: False statement of fact It must be a factual assertion, not an opinion or hyperbole. True statements, even if damaging, are not defamation. Publication to a third party The statement must be communicated to someone other than the person it’s about (even one person counts).
Identification The statement must be about the plaintiff, either by name or in a way that reasonably identifies them.
Harm to reputation The statement must damage the person’s standing in the community or deter others from associating with them. Some statements (like accusing someone of a serious crime) are considered defamation per se, meaning harm is presumed. Fault Private individuals generally must prove the speaker acted negligently. Public figures must prove actual malice—that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Two Types
Libel – Written, printed, or otherwise fixed in a tangible medium. Slander – Spoken or otherwise transient communication.
If you’d like, I can give you a side-by-side chart of how different states phrase their legal definition of defamation so you can see the variations. Would you like me to do that?
In U.S. law, defamation is generally defined as: A false statement of fact that is communicated (published) to a third party, about a person (or sometimes a business), that harms the person’s reputation, and is made with at least a negligent level of fault regarding its truth or falsity.
Key Elements
While exact wording varies by state, most U.S. jurisdictions require the plaintiff to prove all of these: False statement of fact It must be a factual assertion, not an opinion or hyperbole. True statements, even if damaging, are not defamation. Publication to a third party The statement must be communicated to someone other than the person it’s about (even one person counts).
Identification The statement must be about the plaintiff, either by name or in a way that reasonably identifies them.
Harm to reputation The statement must damage the person’s standing in the community or deter others from associating with them. Some statements (like accusing someone of a serious crime) are considered defamation per se, meaning harm is presumed. Fault Private individuals generally must prove the speaker acted negligently. Public figures must prove actual malice—that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Two Types
Libel – Written, printed, or otherwise fixed in a tangible medium. Slander – Spoken or otherwise transient communication.
If you’d like, I can give you a side-by-side chart of how different states phrase their legal definition of defamation so you can see the variations. Would you like me to do that?
首先，一个大一新生，面对研究生学姐的指控，还是在图书馆这种半公开场合，被录像、被质问，心理压力有多大？ 他有医学知识吗？知道湿疹能解释一切吗？他有法律援助吗？大概率没有。他只想“大事化小”，写个道歉信，以为能平息风波——这不叫“怂”，这叫社会经验不足的自我保护。
反观杨景媛，研究生身份，手握话语权，一句“我不知道你是不是第一次，但我要让你这是最后一次”，听起来正义凛然，实则已预设立场。 法院都认定了“与事实不符”，你还说她“没诬告”？那什么叫诬告？非得等到人家跳楼才算？ 更讽刺的是，杨景媛败诉后，不道歉，不反思，反而高调晒保研、曝录音，甚至说“拿肖同学练手，积累打官司经验”。
这哪是“心软”？这是把别人的痛苦当成自己履历上的“案例素材”！罗永浩说她“不坏”，那请问，怎样才算“坏”？非得直播杀人吗？
法院判决性骚扰不成立当不了尚方宝剑。有他的高中校友曝光他转笔转去女厕所。不承认不悔改，还买水军混淆视听颠倒黑白。期待后续法院给他定性一下，在图书馆这样“挠痒”没对杨同学构成性骚扰，但扰乱了公共秩序，让在学校之外再领一个处罚。
他并不是这种人
如果湿疹过敏，应该在宿舍或家里看书，为什么去图书馆？即使去图书馆，也应该去厕所抓骚。 以后类似的性骚扰，都可以搞个湿疹证明了。
想起来当年刘备屠徐州，泗水因此断流
徐州太守杀了曹操父亲，还要百般抵赖
刘备看不下去，帮曹操三屠徐州
因病不能出门，还是因病不可以出门是有区别的。 前者是病人身体条件，后者是法律法规规定。
如果像你这样推论，也可以问杨同学为什么不保告给管理员而是录像，更有甚者是在桌底下，有无侵犯别人隐私？ 肖同学是在桌底下，这杨同学为什么不看书学习而是盯着一男生，而且是从桌底下，有这僻好？
法院判没有足够的证据证明性骚扰，不代表性骚扰没发生。只是证据有一定模糊性。 看视频，当时是手淫，挠痒，或者两者都有之，说不清楚。我个人觉得是两者都有之。
1）杨女最坏，没有一丝一毫的人性
2）辅导员刘某其实也犯法了，她嫉妒肖同学家里有钱（大概率是自己脑补的有钱）就挑唆杨女闹事
3）那个邓某梅一样恶毒，因此顺藤摸瓜，罪魁祸首可能就是副部级校长
4）郭汝飞就一个打工的，罪责较轻
我觉得应该把曹操请出来
这件事情只有曹操能处理好
在美国当然可以啊。 别说受害者了。这么多电视台制片人，为了钱，拍已被判无罪的人的纪录片公映，质疑他的无罪判决，只要你没有造谣，都是合法行为啊。 杨某没有造谣啊。
法庭除了说性骚扰不能认定之外，也在判决书中明确给出了意见：不能认定是手淫。
当然不同人可以有不同意见，但法庭的意见很清楚：谁如果明确说他是手淫 - 这是没有根据的。
所以，杨女这么说，（按法庭的意见）算不算诬告，我不肯定（不知道法律是怎么规定的）。
但一个没有根据的说法，对肖某又有直接的名誉损害，那么别人如果说她是在诽谤侮辱，大概是可以的。
连罗爹都给挖出来
“罗永浩的父亲是和龙市龙门的靠打砸抢起家的革委会起家的，延边二中是延边州排名第一的重点高中，是罗永浩父亲罗昌珍动用手里的权力进入的，罗永浩一直排名倒数第一，学习成绩跟不上，相差太远没有办法被劝退的，罗永浩和他的哥哥都是延吉市出了名的混混儿。”
罗2019年被法院列为失信人，因为一再不履行和字节跳动法律文书规定义务，被定位老赖
我最讨厌罗永浩是他是个精日的日精 在新浪微博上多次把中国称为 支那
罗永浩就没有干成过一件事 新东方英语不行他讲段子 英语补习涉嫌诈骗和逃税 大张旗鼓锤子手机最后成为老赖，失信人
罗就是一个没有信用没有底线的loser，只剩一张嘴，有嘴瘾。
把罗永浩当女权精神领袖格局太低，毁了女权， 杨的支持者有点淹死前抓救命稻草的意思。
女人有了儿子，就成了男权的帮凶
你说说杨同学哪句话是“false statement of fact”.
In U.S. law, defamation is generally defined as:
A false statement of fact that is communicated (published) to a third party, about a person (or sometimes a business), that harms the person’s reputation, and is made with at least a negligent level of fault regarding its truth or falsity.
Key Elements
While exact wording varies by state, most U.S. jurisdictions require the plaintiff to prove all of these:
False statement of fact It must be a factual assertion, not an opinion or hyperbole. True statements, even if damaging, are not defamation.
Publication to a third party The statement must be communicated to someone other than the person it’s about (even one person counts).
Identification The statement must be about the plaintiff, either by name or in a way that reasonably identifies them.
Harm to reputation The statement must damage the person’s standing in the community or deter others from associating with them. Some statements (like accusing someone of a serious crime) are considered defamation per se, meaning harm is presumed.
Fault Private individuals generally must prove the speaker acted negligently. Public figures must prove actual malice—that the speaker knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Two Types
Libel – Written, printed, or otherwise fixed in a tangible medium. Slander – Spoken or otherwise transient communication.
If you’d like, I can give you a side-by-side chart of how different states phrase their legal definition of defamation so you can see the variations. Would you like me to do that?
但方，罗俩人都根据视频认为肖某在收银， 这点两个仇家是一致的
我不是学法律的，也不清楚美国法律和中国法律分别具体的要求是什么。
但就常识而论（稍微配合你这里说的东西）：
首先，说他是不是在手淫，这属于“观点”，还是属于“事实”？这个可以探讨吧？如果是前者，那么就一个简单的问题，如果只是用“观点”，比如，公开骂人是混蛋，王八，该死。。。按你这意思，是不是不能入罪（因为明显说的都是观点啊）？还是只是（在美国）不属于defamation，但有其他的罪名可以套？
如果是后者，那么她就是在使用虚假的（法院意见表面，不能认定的）事实。
你不是说她“诽谤侮辱”吗？“诽谤侮辱”是有法律定义的啊。定义就是她要有公开说“false statement of fact”.有的话你说说啊。没有就是没有诽谤侮辱呗。
1）肖男最无耻下流，有大桌子有别的空位不坐，专挑小桌子对面坐，表现出没正眼看你，而是余光扫射
2）辅导员面前，肖男也没有提到湿疹
3) 邓老师和校长不是你这种宵小之辈能够污蔑的
4）郭教授好好做着科研，怎么就沦为打工仔的
前面回你了。另外，我说的诽谤侮辱当然是泛泛的说法。就比如你要是被人开车撞了，我说大概可以告对方伤害 - 但法律的罪名未必就是这个。
此外注意他们是在中国。如果真想钻细节，应该拿中国的法律条文（我不相信他们打算到美国打官司）。