How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held? If it was on the claimant to prove it was not, I guess I could see it; "hey, this guy said we're a nuclear waste dump in corporate form, run by men that make Jeffrey Dahmer look like a blessed saint, but here's all of his Facebook posts declaring his unending love for us!"
But how do you prove you actually believe something? FMRI images from when you make the statement? Polygraph? Sworn testimony from your friends that you said the same thing frequently, and seemed honest when doing so?
I have the same problem with "sincerely held religious belief" in America. You can't prove that a belief is sincerely held, and laws that reference this idea exist only to discriminate against unpopular faiths.
The law uses intention and sincerity all the time.
The easiest way to prove it in this case would be to subpoena statements made about the company in private, then compare them to the publicly stated opinion to see if there was a difference.
If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion. I’m guess that’s what the New Zealand law is trying to make illegal. (Although in the US that would be legal as long as your statements were an opinion that someone could possibly hold (i.e. not factual lies).)
> If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion.
An engineer at Ford could say that they think the new Silverado is a POS. It could be their honest opinion AND could be said for the purposes of damaging Chevy. Someone can be biased and still honest.
Even if you found evidence they made the opposite claim in another forum, they can still argue that their honest opinion changed over time.
> If, for example, the person was a stakeholder in a competitive company and documented that they were trying to hurt the company, then it obviously wouldn’t be an honest opinion.
You've offered an example of evidence against it being an "honestly-held opinion". You're still thinking of it as being the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove that the opinion was not honestly-held.
That's not the problem here! The plaintiff doesn't need any smoking gun like that. The defendant has to show that it was honestly-held. It doesn't sound like the plaintiff needs any evidence one way or another; if the defendant can't come up with affirmative evidence that it was honestly-held, they're liable. It sounds like an awful system.
> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held?
In the UK at least, it involves convincing the court that it was reasonable to have that opinion based on what you knew or believed to be true at the time. This may be a bad thing for people that honestly hold completely irrational prejudices, but the main challenge for the defence is proving the statement is best understood as an opinion (and not a false assertion of fact). The 'honesty' tends to follow by default, unless the other side can provide a more compelling alternative "it's convenient that your 'intuition' and an unrelated event four years earlier lead you to publicly voice suspicions about my client for the first time whilst you were competing directly with him for promotion".
(I assume the same is true of "sincerely held religious belief" in the US: pretty much any testimony or evidence of religious belief can be accepted unless it seems like a particularly creative excuse, completely unravels under cross-examination or is contradicted by evidence of that individual holding completely different religious beliefs?)
> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held?
You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false.
This can be shown in many ways. The poster didn't actually work there and had no basis for the statement. The poster went on to post somewhere else that his job is fantastic and the best he ever had. The poster had a series of excellent employee reviews and raises. etc.
> You don’t in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact.
This isn’t about the US, and if it was in the US, it would be moot, because opinion is categorically protected, so you wouldn’t have to prove (on either side) whether it was honestly held.
Outside of the US, it is not uncommon for libel standards to be quite different and for the defense to have the burden of proof in things like truth, honest belief, etc. (where they are elements of defenses) once the plaintiff has established that the statements were harmful, and published by the defendant.
Wouldn't that be a civil lawsuit, and therefore it's a bit different? UK at least i believe the bar is much lower. In criminal proceedings, you need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But in civil proceedings, the bar to clear is merely balance of probabilities.
More so, in civil proceedings, it might be the defendant who has to prove innocence. For example if A and B sign a contract, B agrees to pay A under certain conditions, then doesn't pay claiming conditions were not met, and A sues B, the B has to prove payment isn't due as conditions weren't met. Give or take...
> How exactly are you supposed to prove that an opinion was honestly held?
>> You don't in the US. A defendant is presumed innocent and needs to be proven guilty by a finder of fact. What needs to be shown is that the poster posted a statement that he knew was false.
Except this isn't about the US and the person you're responding to hasn't mentioned the US. This is about a lawsuit in New Zealand, where the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff, it's on the defendant to prove that they sincerely believed what they wrote. Hence the question.
> Except that the article is about the decision of a US Federal judge. There is no court case filed in NZ, and NZ law doesn't apply in the US.
No, the article is about a New Zealand company using the discovery process of a lawsuit in CA to get the names of people they will, by their own admission, sue in New Zealand court.
From TFA:
"In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed."
So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this.
> From TFA: "In court, Zuru said it plans to file a defamation lawsuit in New Zealand against whoever posted these on Glassdoor, once their identities are revealed."
That quote clearly says there is no lawsuit in NZ.
> So, no, the rules for burden of proof in the US have nothing to do with this.
They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.
> They do, since it should be clear they were not applied by Tse. That is the issue here, not an unfiled suit in another country, when the US federal courts have jurisdiction over the unmasking process.
I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article:
"Even though the ruling occurred in a U.S. federal court, Judge Tse said he made the ruling based on New Zealand law, as Zuru intends to sue in that jurisdiction. Therefore, the court's ruling was decided based on New Zealand law's definition of defamation, and not the U.S. legal definition."
A US judge used New Zealand law to rule in favor of giving a New Zealand company data it plans on using to sue people for defamation in a New Zealand court. So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.
The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled.
So, again, the question asked by the person you originally responded to had absolutely nothing to do with US burden of proof.
> I mean, you can cling to whatever fantasy you want, but it doesn't change the article:
It's not a fantasy but a recognition that Tse was incorrect. The US SC has held that both online speech and anonymous speech are protected by the First Amendment.
> The article goes even further to say "In other words, Glassdoor shouldn't be ordered to turn over 'anonymous' user data in any case solely based on U.S. law." And yet, this is exactly how Tse ruled.
The question you responded to was asking how one proves sincere intent. You said you don't need to in the US. This article is about a US judge basing a decision on a phenomenon in New Zealand law regarding a New Zealand company wanting information to sue people in New Zealand; any answer limited to "yeah, that doesn't apply in US law" doesn't answer the question.
So, for anyone with experience in New Zealand law: when this New Zealand company sues people in a New Zealand court of law (as is discussed in TFA), how would the defendants go about proving they sincerely believed something?
If you join a group, and suddenly adopt the opinions/beliefs of that group, they may not be honest. The more in-depth/fundamental the opinion or belief is, the higher the suspicion of dishonesty is upon sudden change. Especially if joining the group provides you immediate benefits or it can be shown you tried to derive an immediate benefit through that group ownership.
It is certainly not impossible that one suddenly changed opinions and it had nothing to do with you trying to gain status within a new group (whether irl or social), but most people don't do that.
But how do you prove you actually believe something? FMRI images from when you make the statement? Polygraph? Sworn testimony from your friends that you said the same thing frequently, and seemed honest when doing so?
I have the same problem with "sincerely held religious belief" in America. You can't prove that a belief is sincerely held, and laws that reference this idea exist only to discriminate against unpopular faiths.