i have a legal-ish question.
can a POI, or a victim, take legal action on a youtube channel that discusses him/her and their specific case at hand? or is youtube considered free speech?
can LE request or insist a youtube channel take down videos if there is a possible upcoming arrest and said videos could hinder the investigation?
youtube true crime is new-ish territory, so i have no idea. anyone know?
jmo.
It depends what was said so, if someone is stating an opinion, its usually pretty difficult. Because of our right to free speech, you can share your wrong or offensive opinion with whom ever you like. If the person is asserting something as fact or makes a Statements of opinion that implies underlying facts, then those implications can still give rise to actionable defamation.
For defamation a person has to prove:
1. Defamatory statement: A false and defamatory statement concerning him;
2. Publication: A communicating of that statement to a person other than the plaintiff (a “publication”);
3. Fault: Fault on the part of Defendant, amounting to at least negligence, and in some instances a greater degree of fault;
AND
4. Special harm: Either “special harm” of a pecuniary nature, or the action-ability of the statement despite the non-existence of such special harm. - in this case criminal allegations or implications would count and meet this element
A statement is not defamatory if it is true. At common law, it is always the defendant who has had the burden of proving truth.
Matters of public interest:
Today, as the result of constitutional decisions, the plaintiff (BM) must bear the burden of proving falsity (aka that what was being said about him is false), if:
1. Defendant is a media organization; and - in this case im not sure if the courts would consider youtube a media outlet
2. the statement involves a matter of “public interest”
If the statement involves a matter of public concern or a public figure, and recovery is allowed without proof of “actual malice,” presumed damages may not constitutionally be awarded. - here I believe the disappearance of SM would constitute a matter of public concern
Actual malice: Shown by proof the Defendant either knew of the falsity (aka he knew the information was a lie) or recklessly disregarded the truth (Proven through clear evidence the defendant entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement but published it anyways)
There are alot of elements in proving a defamation case, so it really would depend on the circumstances, and im sorry to give the most lawyerly anwser ever which is maybe/it depends
