7 ms·

Please note: I am not a lawyer With that said, pretty much everyone in my family, including my SO, are lawyers and I have been around the block a few times whe

Please note: I am not a lawyer With that said, pretty much everyone in my family, including my SO, are lawyers and I have been around the block a few times when it comes to discussing slander / libel suits in the US. As an independent 3rd party with no interest in the world of Chess, I don't see how Niemann expects to win any damages in this case. In the US the bar for slander is very high due to the existence of the first amendment and trying to protect it, you will basically have to prove malicious intent and that the offending party knew they were lying. Other countries like the UK have a much lower bar which is why it's a bigger deal there. Unless I am missing some clear piece of evidence no one made a bad faith comment (and i need to stress you need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt) Magnus felt there was foul play because he knew of Nieman's history of cheating which was public knowledge in the chess world, same thing with his comments regarding the coach Chess.com simply made available data that is rightfully theirs and stated that his rise has been exceptional. Hikaru simply commented on the situation like a million other youtubers / twitch streamers and influencers, he just happens to be an expert in the field so he made his opinion using his domain knowledge and the fact that Niemann had been previously accused of cheating. Again, unless i am missing some clear piece of evidence no one acted maliciously or twisted the truth to purposely cause harm, only gave their opinion using the information they had available.

rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> I don't see how Niemann expects to win any damages in this case I don't think that's the only reason you bring a slander lawsuit. I think sometimes people do it expecting they will lose, but knowing the defense will be "we have no evidence the things we said were true, but our false statements are technically legal", and making the defendants go on the record with that defense.
- grogers 4y ago
  IANAL but I think if they knew the statements were false (or with reckless disregard for the truth) then it would be slander. This is the "actual malice" standard. But in this case it seems absurdly unlikely that Niemann could prove this.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    Is this guy enough of a public figure to require the actual malice standard? Because for a private citizen, you would only have to prove that the accusations were wrong, assuming the topic is also not considered to be of public concern. But maybe chess championships and champions are a big enough deal to be considered public.
    - miamibre 4y ago
      In this case everyone mentioned in the suit public figure within the worldwide chess playing community which would suffice. Also this event has had international coverage from multiple sources which would be presented as evidence that they are indeed public figures if there was any doubt.
      - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
        What if someone only became a public figure because they were slandered? I am a chess fan and I had no idea who Hans Niemann was before this mess.
Test0129 4y ago
> As an independent 3rd party with no interest in the world of Chess, I don't see how Niemann expects to win any damages in this case. That's not the goal with most of these libel/slander law suits. Consider the most famous one - Billy Mitchell the most infamous professional gamer of all time. The evidence is basically unanimous he cheated but he uses lawsuits to shut down people who can't afford to fight them. I imagine this is no different. Your only mistake is assuming the court won't throw out such a trashy lawsuit and lawyers exist that actually have some dignity.
- fastball 4y ago
  The Billy Mitchell strategy doesn't make sense in this case though, since I guarantee you that all three named entities have more money to fight lawsuits than Hans Niemann.
  - chongli 4y ago
    We don’t know what Hans’s resources are. Perhaps his lawyers are working pro bono or otherwise agreed to take his case on contingency, with the rationale being that Hans is a public figure and this case may serve as advertisement for the law firm.
    - fastball 4y ago
      Same point applies, since a firm is not gonna take a pro bono (this would actually be contingency fee) case they don't think they can win, which was what the OP was saying.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
tromp 4y ago
Another interesting lawyer analysis can be found on twitter at https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583225640873959424 https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583225640873959424
- miamibre 4y ago
  Thanks for posting this. Shame that it is so difficult to navigate twitter at times, there is a lot of really good analysis here for anyone that is interested. I didn't go over the conspiracy and anti trust charges but he does a good job covering the bases and explaining what Niemann needs to show in order to be awarded damages or not have the suit thrown out.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> I don't see how Niemann expects to win any damages in this case I don't think that's the only reason you bring a slander lawsuit. I think sometimes people do it expecting they will lose, but knowing the defense will be "we have no evidence the things we said were true, but our false statements are technically legal", and making the defendants go on the record with that defense.

grogers 4y ago
IANAL but I think if they knew the statements were false (or with reckless disregard for the truth) then it would be slander. This is the "actual malice" standard. But in this case it seems absurdly unlikely that Niemann could prove this.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Is this guy enough of a public figure to require the actual malice standard? Because for a private citizen, you would only have to prove that the accusations were wrong, assuming the topic is also not considered to be of public concern. But maybe chess championships and champions are a big enough deal to be considered public.
  - miamibre 4y ago
    In this case everyone mentioned in the suit public figure within the worldwide chess playing community which would suffice. Also this event has had international coverage from multiple sources which would be presented as evidence that they are indeed public figures if there was any doubt.
    - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
      What if someone only became a public figure because they were slandered? I am a chess fan and I had no idea who Hans Niemann was before this mess.

Test0129 4y ago

> As an independent 3rd party with no interest in the world of Chess, I don't see how Niemann expects to win any damages in this case. That's not the goal with most of these libel/slander law suits. Consider the most famous one - Billy Mitchell the most infamous professional gamer of all time. The evidence is basically unanimous he cheated but he uses lawsuits to shut down people who can't afford to fight them. I imagine this is no different. Your only mistake is assuming the court won't throw out such a trashy lawsuit and lawyers exist that actually have some dignity.

fastball 4y ago
The Billy Mitchell strategy doesn't make sense in this case though, since I guarantee you that all three named entities have more money to fight lawsuits than Hans Niemann.
- chongli 4y ago
  We don’t know what Hans’s resources are. Perhaps his lawyers are working pro bono or otherwise agreed to take his case on contingency, with the rationale being that Hans is a public figure and this case may serve as advertisement for the law firm.
  - fastball 4y ago
    Same point applies, since a firm is not gonna take a pro bono (this would actually be contingency fee) case they don't think they can win, which was what the OP was saying.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

tromp 4y ago

Another interesting lawyer analysis can be found on twitter at https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583225640873959424 https://twitter.com/AkivaMCohen/status/1583225640873959424

miamibre 4y ago
Thanks for posting this. Shame that it is so difficult to navigate twitter at times, there is a lot of really good analysis here for anyone that is interested. I didn't go over the conspiracy and anti trust charges but he does a good job covering the bases and explaining what Niemann needs to show in order to be awarded damages or not have the suit thrown out.