can a smarter person explain to me why users and youtube cannot be sued for character assignation or

[AmandaRuth]

or libel or slander....I just don't get it. 2nd question, can this be changed?

I am about ready to go into a class, so I won't be able to check this for about 6 hours (Always be learning, my mom said to me )

[jberryhill]

1. Who said they can't?

I'm puzzled as to why you believe the premise of your question is true.

[AmandaRuth]

3. I read it somewhere on the net

It made sense to me at the time due to the many conspiracy vids up re sandyhook, and others. Thanks for the response, appreciated.

[jberryhill]

5. Suing and winning are two different things

You may find this thread interesting:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10273260

As you note below, couching something as a statement of opinion becomes a thorny issue.

In comparison to other countries, it is difficult to sue people for "awful stuff they say" as a general proposition in the US. That is not to say it is impossible - of course, it happens all of the time.

But if I go around saying "I think AmandaRuth is an alien lizard person, because I channeled the spirits of the universe who told me that all alien lizards are named 'Amanda'", then you are going to have a hard time suing me for anything.

[TheMightyFavog]

6. And for the brave kids whose faces we're seeing constantly on the news it's worse.

Libel/Slander standards are different for public figures as opposed to private citizens. hell of a lot harder to win a libel/slander case when one is a public figure. That's not to say it can't be done. Carol Burnett pulled it off against the National Enquirer years back.

[mercuryblues]

2. they can

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html

[AmandaRuth]

4. Thanks

Interesting reading, I guess the deal is statement of opinion vs statement of facts. Thanks again.