"People have accused /u/Dii_Casses of being a racist pedophile."
IANAL but I don't think that necessarily protects them. Like with the above statement, recklessly publishing unsubstantiated and destructive gossip along with damages might be enough for a decent case. Going by memory, wasn't that what made Gawker bankrupt and shut down?
But that distinction might matter, and I'm sure they cleared it with their legal. If that's the case, how progressive of them, and what social responsibility to rely on legal hair-splitting!
"People have accused /u/Dii_Casses of being a racist pedophile."
IANAL but I don't think that necessarily protects them. Like with the above statement, recklessly publishing unsubstantiated and destructive gossip along with damages might be enough for a decent case. Going by memory, wasn't that what made _Gawker_ bankrupt and shut down?
But that distinction might matter, and I'm sure they cleared it with their legal. If that's the case, how progressive of them, and what social responsibility to rely on legal hair-splitting!
It's not defamation. They aren't saying the business is racist. They're just saying it is accused of being racist.
Pedantic, yes, but the law thrives on such fine hair-splitting.