• tempest@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Sue them for what? He would have to prove damages and they took it down.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Libel. Taking it down doesn’t undo the damage to reputation which libel is concerned with.

      • TAG@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        59 minutes ago

        In the US, libel requires you to prove that the writer knew that what they were writing is not true and that they did it to hurt you. Doing lazy research and trusting an AI is not going to meet that standard.

      • Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        How about getting them to put an “e” after the “s” in their name instead?

      • tempest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 hours ago

        As much as I would like to see that happen paying to fight a court case against Conde Nast just to get a retraction that they will stick somewhere invisible doesn’t really sound like a winning formula.

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Letting them win because you’ve canceled before even playing is also a losing formula. Even if they don’t get awarded monetary damages they can probably at least get their legal expenses covered.

    • morto@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Publicly making false statements using his name isn’t a crime by itself in his jurisdiction?