On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Here's another hypothetical question; if WR were posting what it thought was the real name of a Wikipedia editor, and further asserting that that person was a CIA spy, mentally unbalanced, and various other similar claims, would you consider that "defamatory"? Or do WR posters have a unique definition of defamatory that ends with "...except when it's about Wikipedia editors, then anything goes."
There's a difference between saying "So-and-so is a CIA spy" and "I think it possible that so-and-so is a CIA spy". Both are batshit insane commentary, but only one is truly defamatory.
Wrapping some weasel words around defamation doesn't stop it from being defamatory. Saying "it appears that this person was a CIA agent" is the same as saying that they are one.