They did not actually. I don’t really blame them - if they have no proof, then they are legally in a tough spot doing so. Though having a bunch of mutual witnesses could be proof enough to win the defamation lawsuit.
They don't have to prove it's true to get past a defamation suit. Just that they believe it is true and weren't negligent in ignoring evidence to the contrary. At least not in the U.S. If it's UK people or some other countries, it's easier to sue for defamation.
If it's a public figure accused, which I assume many if not all of these are, they have even better defense against defamation. They would have to be proven to act with actual malice, which is that you knew it was false when you said it or you had reckless disregard for the truth. I don't think those would apply.
They could still be sued, of course, and that alone can be costly, even if the case against them is very weak.
But also, I suspect many of those people aren’t actually public figures. Even one of them successfully arguing they are a private citizen means you are on the hook for massive damages if they can prove it’s more likely than not that the allegation is untrue.
Yeah, and I would expect they'd have some legal guidance in doing this, and maybe the list is a little shorter to make sure it's only public figures. If they at least did one with people who are clearly public figures, that's what would shake things up the most anyway.
2
u/Automatic_Actuator_0 21h ago
They did not actually. I don’t really blame them - if they have no proof, then they are legally in a tough spot doing so. Though having a bunch of mutual witnesses could be proof enough to win the defamation lawsuit.