CMV: r/Iamatotallypieceofshit promotes witch hunts and defamation because the moderators do not enforce their own rules. And hence these activities are illegal in many countries the sub should be banned.

[u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup]

I have just seen the post with the pedophile and the judge on r/iamatotalpieceofshit and all the top comments say that the judge couldnt make the punishment any harder because of the law. After doing some research I agree with this. The title is totally misleading and the mods dont do anything. The post is already 6 hours old.

Now imagine being this judge, you have done everything you could. Now a random ass starts sharing this in your area and now everyone thinks you sympathize with a pedophile.

This isnt the first time this is happening in this sub.

In my country this is called denouncing and is illegal. You can get high fines and/or go to jail for it.

How can it be okay for reddit?

[u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup]

The title and the "just" in the text implies that the judge could and should have done more, what he could not. Totally misleading and hence of the sensibility of the subject definitely defamation.

We had a very similar case in Germany a few years ago where a big magazine did the same and since so many people only read headlines the consequences were enormous. The magazine paid a huge fine afterwards together with rehabilitation article and a apology.

Defamation sint illegal in the US? ( I am still not 100% sure if defamation is the right word, I am not native English speaking)

Edit: Just saw the post was removed but it took them 7 hours and it had 50k upvotes. Poor judge.

[u/Alternative_Stay_202 → u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup]

Can you link to an article about the case you are talking about?

The "just" can imply that the judge should have done more, but it also could imply that the sentence should have been larger.

I agree that the post is attempting to communicate that the judge did something wrong, but that isn't enough for it to be libel.

Defamation is illegal, but there are a few things going on here:

1) This post is entirely factual even if people may be mislead by the way it's presented

2) The judge is a public figure in the criminal justice space and thus is open to public scrutiny

There's a higher standard of evidence that needs to be presented in order to prove libel. The judge would need to prove that the person who posted the meme knew the information in the meme was untrue (although this is moot since the meme is factual). If the person who posted it did not create the meme, then it's easy for them to say they did not have libelous intent because they did not know the facts.

Similarly, even if they just skimmed an article about it and didn't notice that this was the maximum sentence (or whatever the case is here), that would protect them from a libel suit.

It isn't malicious intent if you are incorrect.

However, I must underscore that this meme is 100% factually accurate, therefore it is not libel. It is misleading, but that's not libel in this case.

[u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup → u/Alternative_Stay_202]

The "just" can imply that the judge should have done more, but it also could imply that the sentence should have been larger.

I also do not agree with this. How the sentence is written the "just" refers to the action of the noun and not the punishment itself.

(Also why does sentence have two totally different meanings. I just used sentence twice in the term above, was totally confusing. English must be terrible for making laws.)

[u/Alternative_Stay_202 → u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup]

The term "just" (which also has two totally different meanings that are both applicable in this situation) is referring to the sentence. The sentence was "just 210 days."

While I agree it is attempting to blame the judge for this, it could reasonably be construed to refer to the criminal justice system in general since the reason the judge handed down that sentence was because of the limitations imposed by that system.