• livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    @schmidtster

    you would get sued for libel.

    That wouldn’t play. Truth is a complete defense for libel and all your lawyer has to do is point out the ordinary meaning of the word rape encompasses the plaintiff’s crime.

    If people could get successfully sued for speaking English instead of Legalese in an ordinary context then we’d all have been sued by now.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      all your lawyer has to do is point out the ordinary meaning of the word rape encompasses the plaintiff’s crime.

      You can’t use ordinary meanings in the court of law… that’s the entire issue and why it’s a thing. You say ordinary, and than use the word crime. Now you need to use the legal definition instead of ordinary. You shot your own foot in that situation.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s not how libel works though. The legal meaning of words doesn’t bind publishers of newspapers to use only that meaning, for example.

        If you argue that a woman is a rapist in UK court, that won’t work.
        If you argue that your usage of the word rapist to describe a woman convicted of penatrative non consensual sexual contact is accurate, all you need to do is point to the dictionary, because the libel case isn’t about the sexual offense, but the plain words used.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        @schmidtster I don’t think you’re understanding libel law.

        You can’t take someone to court just for using a common dictionary word to mean the thing it is commonly used to mean.

        I mean you can but you just won’t win.