No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole...
Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court.
Congratulations...you just made the OP's threat nothing more than digital hot air.
Even I, a non-lawyer, could see what would (if the judge is reasonable) be a slam-dunk strategy to get ol' Spoet skating like a hockey team:
1) As you pointed out, show the judge a random sample of 'FUD' in this forum from other posters while making it plain that the very term 'FUD' is a potent indicator that the criticisms in question are hyperbolic and not to be taken seriously by any reasonable person.
2) A random sample of Spoetnik being Spoetnik...all from posts that he made before the Blocknet was even announced.
Granted that the judge would probably call ol' Spoet a 'crank' and/or a 'crackpot', but only in the context of saying that no reasonable person would conclude that Spoetnik's postings should be taken seriously enough to constitute injury to anyone's reputation.
It's a real irony, really...the fact that Spoetnik being somewhat of an acquired taste is the best chance he has of having the judge throw the lawsuit right into /dev/null.
Nope, the judge would see i am the only sensible one here your all scammers.. or scam defenders.
What does FUD mean ?
for the 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000 million'th time it is warranted within the context and confines of the situation.. FACT.
“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them," the first scientist wrote, "but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.”
― Ibn al-Haytham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlhazenAKA: that means crystal clear..
FUD first and ask questions later.
and ALL of humanities science is based on that very concept from that man in history !
the judge would probably call ol' Spoet a 'crank' and/or a 'crackpot'
FUCK NO !
He would see your all fucking morons defending ponzi schemes and
i am one of the only ones with a shred of intelligence around here..
not very many of us.
i get a kick out of you back-yard mechanic lawyers and your verbal diarrhea (while chanting no regulations/laws free market fucktard bullshit) LOL
With crap like, "
You can be sued if you read this topic" hahhhahah