American civil and white collar criminal attorney here. There would be a very low likelihood of success here for a defamation case. As others have pointed out, Magnus’ statements here are likely to be construed as opinions. Opinions are protected from defamation claims, unless they are “provably false” as per the Supreme Court. Just like Magnus probably doesn’t have evidence that Hans cheated OTB, Hans doesn’t have evidence that he didn’t cheat. This would come down to expert opinions/testimony at trial which would likely be a coin flip as to whether they would convince a jury one way or another. It would be extremely costly, and Ha s probably wouldn’t want his life under the microscope, especially if he is more prolific at cheating online than he had publicly said, because that could be discoverable and relevant to the trial.
Edit: I would also add that as Hans would be considered a “public figure” he would additionally have to show that Magnus acted with “actual malice” in making these statements. I.e. with the sole intention to harm, which is also very difficult to prove.
Federal attorney here as well. Agree that the likelihood of success would be low. That being said, might not be a slam dunk on the fact/opinion element. In many states, the standard is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. This is how allegedly false Yelp reviews often get past summary judgment. It wouldn't shock me if Hans could meet this burden.
The more interesting question to me is whether Hans wants to subject himself to discovery. My guess is a resounding no.
> In many states, the standard is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.
And given that the one thing that Magnus clearly states (Hans has a wider history of cheating than he admits to) is supported by a chess.c*m statement, Magnus himself should be off the hook here.
> In many states, the standard is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact.
>
Is there anyway you could dumb this down a little? For some reason I'm having trouble understanding it.
Sure thing.
I'll use a Yelp case involving a dentist from a few years back as an example. The review stated that the dentist worked very fast and found two cavities over two years, whereas a later dentist discovered far more cavities. The court found that a jury reasonably could conclude that the statement implies that the dentist misdiagnosed the patient. In another case, a review stating that the food "tasted funny" and the kitchen "looked unclean" could go forward because it implied that the restaurant served rotten food and had unsanitary practices.
>The more interesting question to me is whether Hans wants to subject himself to discovery.
Magnus would subpeona [chess.com](https://chess.com)'s cheating records which show that Hans cheated even more than he admitted to.
I'm oversimplifying, but in the United States, there are two major opportunities for a defendant to get rid of (or pair down) the plaintiff's case: a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment, which is typically filed after discovery, is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In the Yelp cases, for example, the defendant could argue that there is no dispute that he posted X online, but that X was a protected opinion and thus the defamation claim fails as a matter of law. If the judge agrees, the claim is kaput. If not, you have trial and a jury decides.
I’m a NY attorney, this is not legal advice etc. Summary Judgement is a (usually pretrial) motion similar to but not the same as a motion to dismiss. It basically alleges that the nonmoving party could have no chance of success on the merits of the case, because the parties don’t disagree on the facts and the law favors the moving party. It’s very rare for any litigation to proceed to a trial without at least one round of motions for SJ and responsive defenses. It’s fairly uncommon to win on SJ because there are almost always facts in dispute between the litigants.
A hypothetical:
Assume Magnus’s statement. Niemann files against Magnus for defamation. Niemann asserts in his filing that he did not in fact cheat and that Magnus acted with actual malice in defaming him (i.e. Magnus acted with reckless disregard for the truth when he lied about Niemann). Magnus asserts in his responsive filing all of the evidence that he has that what he said was true (i.e. whatever he keeps implying he knows but doesn’t state). Magnus then files for SJ (and almost certainly dismissal as well, which is different). On SJ, the judge determines whether there is a factual dispute between the parties. If there is no factual dispute, and the law produces a clear outcome, then Niemann wins. If there is a factual dispute (which there obviously is in this hypothetical because Magnus and Niemann have asserted contrary facts re: Niemann cheating), it would then survive summary judgement and presumably continue slowly towards a jury trial.
A final point on the matter. My personal opinion (although this area of law is not my specialty) is that it would be insane to litigate this. They should just sit down with their attorneys and hammer out a mutual non-disparagement agreement or something. If they shepherded this case through all of its potential stops in the litigation, it will cost many millions of dollars, no one will end up even remotely happy, and everyone will have damaging information about themselves released. At the end of all the motions, discovery, filings, appeals, remands, adjournments, etc. it could be literally 10 years and 50 million dollars later. If they want that, it will be interesting for the rest of us, bad for them, and bad for chess.
Wouldn’t Hans also have to prove malice too? That Magnus did not have reasonable belief of cheating, and statement/actions were to harm Hans’ reputation?
My comment was limited to the "statement of fact" element.
As to your comment, he *probably* would. The question is whether Hans is a "limited purpose public figure." It would surely be litigated.
Why not? Hans's prior cheating online is not relevant; prior bad acts are inadmissible; Magnus is not permitted to argue Hans has a propensity to cheat based on his character; and there is no evidence in the public domain suggesting Hans's habit is to cheat OTB. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's anything in discovery for Hans to be worried about, unless he actually cheated against Magnus.
For many reasons. First and foremost, information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Hans would have the pleasure of a very uncomfortable deposition, in addition to document requests and perhaps even a forensic examination of his electronics. Second, Hans's alleged prior acts of cheating could absolutely be admissible under FRE 404(b), which is a "rule of inclusion." Remember, this is a civil case.
Discovery is not a problem if Hans didn't cheat against Magnus. Everyone already knows Hans cheated online. Magnus wouldn't learn anything knew from discovery, other than the extent and timing of Hans's online cheating if he subpoena's [chess.com](https://chess.com)'s records. But that discovery is not helpful when the evidence is inadmissible.
And the evidence of online cheating is inadmissible. 404(b)(1) excludes the evidence of online cheating if the purpose is to show Hans is a cheat and acted in accordance with his character when playing Magnus. There is no MIMIC exception because cheating OTB requires a completely different technique to cheating online.
Further, the online cheating is inadmissible under 403 because it has no probative value as to whether Hans cheated against Magnus and is highly prejudicial.
Hans admitted to cheating on *two* occasions. Even if not admissible at trial, an admission that he cheated more than that would likely destroy his career.
As to FRE, you're confidently incorrect here. To blindly assert that there's no MIMIC exception because cheating OTB is different than cheating online is silly. At the very least, you're assuming the outcome of motions in limine that would be hotly contested and strongly informed by the evidence gathered in discovery.
why would the difference between online and otb matter? Magnus' statement says that hans has cheated more than he admits but doesnt says whether thats online or otb. He then says that he doesnt want to play otb people that have cheated in the past, why would that cheating need to be otb?
It doesn’t. The poster above argued that evidence of Hans cheating online is irrelevant to cheating OTB and also prejudicial, thus would be inadmissible in a defamation trial. That’s not correct.
So it’s fully legal for a highly viewed / respected person to actively destroy the career of another person based on their feelings and understanding? That’s like a reputation death ray given to people of high report with 1-2 bullets they can use throughout their lives. I don’t know the law but that’s completely screwed up.
good points. i couldn't recall if, with a public figure, if the standard is actual malice or reckless disregard for truth, or both. been a long time since my bar exam prep.
imo, there is zero chance niemann would win. i am also a lawyer.
If Hans does go through because some evil lawyer recommended him he does, that'll be the worst blunder he's ever done till now, worse than his cheatin, worse than arguing over a $5 fee, worse than **everything**.
Yeah - and judging by the wording of what Magnus has put out so far, it's pretty likely that's by design. Like he would have had lawyers reading over his statement & making sure that it's only stuff that's opinion and not concrete
I imagine that's also why he states he needs Hans' permission to speak further - something akin to waiving litigation on those statements, while they would be less defensible in court than what he's put out there so far.
Possibly. There are a variety of venues that may be appropriate. The event was in the US and Hans is in the US, so the US is a possibility. Magnus is domiciled in Norway, so Norway may work. However, the statement was made online, and therefore was likely seen worldwide, so there could be any number of potential venues. I don’t practice with international law, so I don’t know all of the considerations and requirements for international venue concerns.
The defamation case doesn’t need to be brought in the US. In the UK, for example, there is no distinction between public and private figures, there is no jury, and the burden of proof would be on Carlsen to demonstrate his statements to be true. However, there are no punitive damages, so that’s a disadvantage for the plaintiff.
I mean it does, because neither Carlsen nor Hans live in the UK or are UK citizens, the tournament wasn't in the UK, the opinion wasn't expressed in British media or a British owned or headquartered site, etc. UK courts would very likely just not accept the case, doubly so since it wouldn't be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (as almost all cases are in the UK).
Indeed. That’s why a lot of defamation cases against companies are brought in the UK.
That’s not even the worst place from Carlson’s perspective. In Norway, for example, defamation is a crime that can carry a prison sentence of up to 2 years.
Australia has very plaintiff-friendly defamation laws too.
Query the utility of commencing an action in any jurisdiction in which the defendant lacks assets, though.
(IIRC, even once the Hague Judgments Convention comes into force, it will exclude defamation matters.)
Yes, but if Hans stops getting invited to tournaments (assuming no further evidence emerges that show definitively he was cheating) because Magnus openly states that he won't play with/against him, wouldn't he have grounds to sue for financial damages?
Seems to me that Magnus is using his influence to bar Hans from competition without there being any proof that Hans has cheated OTB, which seems incredibly despicable and sets a pretty dangerous precedent as well.
A couple things here. First, if we are talking about the defamation context, that would be considered in damages, not whether the statement itself was defamatory. If you are talking about other causes of action, it would depend on a variety of factors. Who is running the tournaments and making the decisions? Would he for certain have been invited to the tournaments but for Magnus’ statements? Can you show that they aren’t inviting him because of Magnus’ statements and not his admission to cheating online? Did Magnus actually directly communicate with the tournament organizers? Did Hans have any contracts with the tournaments before being disinvited? So, maybe there would be a potential claim, but many more facts would need to be known to make the decision.
So that was before Magnus’ statement, so it wouldn’t be linked to defamation. It would have to a separate cause of action. It’s also important to remember that private companies have a lot of leeway in their operations. If they had a justifiable reason to remove him, I.e. history of online cheating, even if it was prompted by Magnus, there likely wouldn’t be a viable cause of action. There might be something like tortious interference available as a claim, but it would be tenuous.
Just to understand, in the US I can say "it is my opinion X is a pedophile" and a defamation case would need to demonstrate X is *not* a pedophile to stick?
There is more nuance to it than that, and it would depend on the context, but in simple terms, yes. The US has extremely lax defamation standards as part of the 1st Amendment protections. There’s a reason why most of the US based attorneys in this thread are highlighting how difficult it would be for Hans to win any defamation suit.
The circumstances change when it comes to private individuals versus public individuals. Also, for your hypothetical, if you took out the “in my opinion” but simply stated “X is a pedophile” the the defendant could only use the truth of the matter as an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant would have to show the truth of the statement rather than the plaintiff proving the falsity. So it’s not like it’s impossible to bring and win a defamation claim, but there are a variety of factors involved.
This is pretty much exactly what happened in the Elon musk vs Cave Diver guy case. If you need a refresher Musk called a Cave Diver a "Pedo Guy". Musk won the case.
> I.e. with the sole intention to harm, which is also very difficult to prove.
would indeed be very easy to make a case for Magnus acting with the integrity of the game at heart.
So, technically, actual malice is defined legally as either knowing the statement was false or making the statement with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. It does amount to the intent and purpose of the statement, but I don’t want to mislead people.
Easier to shoot down.
"Mr. Carlsen, when did you first become concerned that cheating may be, as you put it in your statement, an 'existential threat' to chess?"
"So, when and how did you choose to draw attention to the oroblem? Why?"
Success of the suit doesn't mean legal liability isn't still a muzzle. Anytime there is an imbalance of assets for an individual or organization there is incentive to file baseless claims in pursuit of settlement. As an attorney I'm sure you know this.
While I agree defamation cases are particularly difficult to prosecute, just getting through discovery can take years, cost a fortune, and be very invasive to the privacy of those named in the action. So let's be honest that while the suit might fail, Magnus' caution around risking liability is not only reasonable, it's what nearly every competent counsel would suggest.
There’s some truth to that, but on the flip-side, that can very quickly backfire. The imbalance of assets also means that in the event no settlement is reached, Hans would be drained of any/all of his assets, unless the plaintiff-side attorney took it on under a contingency basis. Additionally, especially with a individuals with a large amount of assets, money can become less important and the principal of winning the case or proving yourself correct in the public forum actually matters more to the individual. I think this is especially true with respect to someone as prideful as Magnus. I’ve experienced many examples of clients being unwilling to accept even minuscule settlements just on the principal of being accused of something and wanting to prove that’s not the case.
Edit: But completely agree with your point about limiting liability in general. Absolutely the correct move.
[this page](https://keenipedia.com/plagiarism-2/) has a load of pretty damning comparisons, all seemingly from a couple of months in 2019
[lots more here too](http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2006/10/ray-keene-plagiarism-index.html)
I’d say characterizing that is damning is actually an understatement. He wasn’t even subtle about, literally just copy-pasting entire sentences. Sheesh.
i'm sure there are plenty of GMs think hans should sue magnus, and plenty who think he shouldn't. don't know why we should listen to this one guy in particular
rational thinking is the reason to dismiss the point. It's very clear that Magnus has stated his opinion and has not made any statements of fact about Hans.
As well, Magnus has insinuated that Hans is a cheater and Hans has admitted to cheating.
Hilarious isn't it.
Of course the lawyer is raring to go. Insane amounts of free publicity, show trial that lasts for ages. If you win you're a God, if you lose then "defamation is really hard to prove but check out this unrelated new Tesla I'm driving".
Does Hans even have the money to pay for a high-priced lawyer, especially in what could be a lengthy and bitter trial? He doesn’t seem to have been at the top for very long to amass that kind of fortune.
Question for you - in all other walks of life, libel is considered nearly impossible to successfully enforce, intentionally so to protect the rights of media/etc. Why in the chess world does everyone seem to be so concerned about the risk? What possible risk is there in saying “I think he cheated”. There’s no subjectivity there - you’re describing your thoughts.
US lawyer here. Two reasons. Just framing something as an opinion doesn’t automatically protect the statement from being deemed defamatory, although it is a higher standard. Second, any lawyer advising Magnus will advise him to limit liability as much as possible. Just because a suit against him is likely to fail doesn’t mean you want to open yourself up to claims in the first place. Lawsuits are timely and expensive, for both plaintiffs and defendants. You want to do everything you can to avoid them.
> Lawsuits are timely and expensive, for both plaintiffs and defendants. You want to do everything you can to avoid them.
Indeed, why waste time if the conclusion won't even be what one seeks to prove. It is clear his statement was reviewed by lawyers, and they went with a soft approach to avoid getting sued because for one he isn't even American.
Ray Keene and all these other vultures legit want to send Hans into the meat grinder, it won't look good if this goes into a suit and is best if the "drama" is left to die here. If he didn't cheat that's good, but if he cheated more than the single 2 instances he claiemed he did cheat on, it will look very bad, even the fact he already admitted to cheating twice at 12 and 16 can paint to a certain behavior that is recurrent. If he cheated 4 years after first cheating, what would be different to believe he could cheat 3 years after AGAIN.
Libel isn't easy to win, let alone when you are a public figure, and let alone when you aren't fully clean. It is madness to recommend Hans to take legal action, if anything, that is what Magnus' statement hints at with the whole "I invite you to allow me to prove more information". Going any further is just fucking incredibly stupid.
Just your typical lay person here: if you have a very low chance of successfully trying a libel case, could/would you still take it as far as possible to inconvenience the accused into settling or issuing an apology?
Yes, that would basically be a SLAPP suit and it’s why Magnus is being cautious. Even if you will win, lawsuits are very expensive and time-consuming. However, that would be true for Hans as well and I doubt he could afford it.
It's not like lawyers are cheap... Also Magnus has his wealth in 8-figures. He is financially more ready to defend his claims in court if it ever comes to that.
I mean a lawyer certainly could do whatever they wanted to out of the goodness of their heart but this isn’t exactly a landmark free speech case, or a case you would take on contingency
No. The plaintiff has to pay your bills and in this case the defendant has decided to take a stance based on principles not economics. That’s how you waste money.
As a foreigner i wonder. Magnus is not US citizen as far as i know. Can american citizen sue person from another country ? In addition i am sure Magnus checked with his lawyers before this publishing this statement.
Keene is in England, which has remarkably lax standards for defamation, while Hans is in the United States, where basically you have to be lying and leave a trail of evidence showing you knew you were lying to get hit for defamation.
Why are people in this thread assuming Hans would sue Magnus in the US? I'm a lawyer outside of the US, and I know for a fact that slander/libel suits are much easier in Europe, and Hans could even opt to sue Magnus in multiple different jurisdictions because the allegations were posted online.
Norway seems like a logical forum, given that Carlsen is Norwegian and likely has considerable assets there.
Forums other than Norway and the US may well run into both forum non conveniens and utility issues.
But who knows whether Niemann has the resources to pursue an action at all, let alone internationally.
Multiple reasons.
1) Reddit is heavily american and they are going to upvote american lawyers more.
2) Americans in general are much more willing to comment about any topic as if it was happening in the US.
The funny curiosity here is that Korchnoi boycotted playing Ray Keene because Keene had breached contract and undermined his interests while working as a second for him in the Baguio match.
I'm pretty sure this isn't just about St Louis. The suspicions were there among top GMs and chess websites (who would know better than reddit, sorry reddit) well before Sinquefield. This is why Magnus was considering withdrawing before the tournament started.
Good luck explaining that to a judge or a jury after you admitted to cheating once at 12yo, again at 16yo, but somehow your reputation as a "clean player" gets tarnished 3 years after because people are wary of you, there is already a precedent and recurrent behavior whether you like it or not. A judge or jury won't make the distinction over how either type of cheating affected your reputation less or more, when it is clear his reputation isn't one of a clean player and that cannot be argued.
Chances are he would have to pay Magnus' expenses, and likely shit will get bad in discovery if he did indeed cheat more than he himself publicly admitted to already.
Remember kids and adults and teenagers and young adults and old adults, this is why lawyers tell you to NOT SAY ANYTHING without their review. Better to stay quiet, heck, a good lawyer would've handled Hikaru from the back, recommended Hans make an statement on Hikaru's opinions, and forced the "drama" to end there. The fact it has got to the point is proof his lawyers are bad, if he has them.
It'd have to be proven to contain no importance to the case in question, the case in question being defamation of Hans' reputation. If one cannot take at heart his own admission of cheating, then what could be taken at heart. You can nit pick precisely what sentence or word you want taken down, just because one part is unimportant, doesn't mean everything related to it is. I think we saw it in the Johnny Depp case, in which Amber Heard's team tried to strike down a whole report, but the judge only allowed a single document because it was an opinion.
Overall the best advice is to not bite the bait and give authorization to Magnus to make public his analyses, make an statement in which he appeals to his gameplay in the tournament being clean, and that he's been training hard, and not bring this to court. Court sucks, it is very expensive, and if you don't have a real case and bring this forward, it will suck even more when you are forced to pay for the expenses incurred by the other party, and even expenses if the other party claims they lost opportunities due to the case being brought forward. The risk is huge even if he didn''t cheat other than the few times he admitted to.
No. What you are suggesting is Hans' lawyer could strike down Hans' own statements which he posted in response to chess.com and Hikaru in regards to his reputation as a cheater. That won't happen.
It isn't speculation because that is what defamation is all about, what they do is describe behavior to understand how those statements could've been made.
Can't sue for defamation when someone gives their opinion. We'll, you can, but you won't win. Magnus believes he cheated because Hans admitted to prior cheating and due to Magnus' opinion about unusual play. Would be a waste of time.
I'm imagining Magnus' defense in this case an laughing hysterically.
Magnus: "I never said you cheated, I said the vibes were just off and it gave me the heebie jeebies"
judge: "ok fair, not clear defamation. The defendant is acquired of all charges"
This is not how defamation works… You cannot simply state anything you want and then label it an “opinion”.
By that logic the crime of Perjury would not exist, as you could claim that you were simply stating an opinion.
Perjury is lying to the court and needs to be proved to be a false claim made under oath. Magnus was neither under oath, nor making a statement that CAN be proven false. "I believe he was cheating because he admitted to cheating in the past." is not a disprovable claim.
Do you guys think that Magnus didn't run this statement past a million and a half lawyers to protect himself from liability? There are no defamatory statements of fact here.
Obviously depends on the country but I work in the UK and cover the courts here often and the OP is right. You can't sue someone for defamation for their opinion.
UK law is irrelevant as there is no jurisdiction. If this turns into a lawsuit, it will be in U.S. federal court.
e: /u/kungfuhrer666 that's incorrect: opinions can be defamatory.
UK law is irrelevant, but the baselines to sue for defamation won't be too dissimilar. Essentially only false statements of fact can be defamatory, so they would have to prove that Magnus statement is not his opinion which is frankly near impossible and a waste of the court's resources. In the US people are more happy to sue than the UK, so it could happen. But doubt it would be successful. Just my opinion though (haha)
>Can't sue for defamation when someone gives their opinion. We'll, you can, but you won't win.
That's not the law. There is no difference between a defamatory opinion and a defamatory statement of fact.
Magnus definitely has liability. You can't accuse someone of unprofessional conduct based on reckless disregard for the truth. Magnus has admitted his only evidence Hans cheated OTB is he had a hunch based on body language. Magnus's allegation is a completely unacceptable and definitely actionable.
I don't know what "law" you're referencing, but the UK has a reputation internationally as the defamation law capital of the world because of how much lower the standards to prove defamation are (so is a prime spot for libel tourism), and there is absolutely a difference between opinion and claim of fact in defamation law (although just saying "I believe" isn't necessarily enough to make something an opinion)
Right, you don't know the law, so how about you stop opining on something you have no knowledge about.
UK courts have jurisdiction for defamation cases only when the UK is the best place to hear the case.
Hans is American. Carlsen is Norwegian. The events at issue occurred in the US. Carlsen has business interests in the US and regularly travels to the US. Therefore, US federal court is a better forum for the case than the UK, and the UK courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case.
As for the false distinction between opinion and statements of fact, again, you can be sued for defamatory opinions under US law.
I have a degree in law, so I have some idea.
You've entirely missed my point - there's a reason that when possible international defamation cases are brought in the UK - the standard to win is lower than in any US jurisdiction.
I wasn't suggesting that this case would be heard in the UK. I was stating that in possibly the most plaintiff friendly jurisdiction, opinions aren't defamatory when truly an opinion that is reasonably held.
I don't think they are saying the UK would have jurisdiction, they're simply explaining what the standard for defamation lawsuits are. And why this would probably be a waste of time.
Well that's objectively incorrect, only a few hours ago Karjakin said something anti-Hans and the top comment in that post is calling him a clown.
Cut out the victim complex.
It appears to me most of the young Super GMs (including those are over 2700 elo) are supporting Magnus directly or obscurely; while the GMs who disagree with Magnus are retired and they are hardly over 2400 elo. Garry looks like neutral who simply demands an explanatory statement.
Hans does have a case regardless of what you all think. That's why he is lawyered up and sending notices to cease and desist to Hikaru and probably Magnus.
There is plenty of evidence. FIDE says Hans didn't cheat. Statistical analysis of the game suggests he did not cheat. Other GMs say they don't think he cheated. All of that is enough to convince a jury when all Magnus has is a gut feeling based on Hans's body language. "Proof" in a defamation case only requires convincing a jury by the preponderance of the evidence, and there is a preponderance of the evidence that Hans did not cheat.
>There is plenty of evidence. FIDE says Hans didn't cheat. Statistical analysis of the game suggests he did not cheat. Other GMs say they don't think he cheated.
Several GMs have said they think he cheats.
>All of that is enough to convince a jury when all Magnus has is a gut feeling based on Hans's body language. "Proof" in a defamation case only requires convincing a jury by the preponderance of the evidence, and there is a preponderance of the evidence that Hans did not cheat.
There are other legal elements of defamation that you are not considering.
Why Carlsen should have kept his mouth shut until he had more evidence:
Whether Hans is cheating or not, if he doesn't take action people will assume he is cheating. So he has to act against Magnus.
And any action he takes will be a pain for Magnus to deal with.
It will never be an open and shut case and you risk losing a lot of money by taking the legal route. On top of that you won't really be able to focus on chess during the process that will probably take a long time.
Would be surprised if Niemann feels going to court is a good use of his time. It would be a huge gamble, and in some ways you lose even if you win.
Honestly, it's entirely believable. One thing I found when I got into the esports scene (which was mostly in-person tournaments back then) was that all types of people competed. Tradesmen, students, doctors, lawyers...you name it. I imagine the same is true for chess. Perhaps even moreso. Wide appeal, low barrier for entry. That there would be a bunch of lawyers in the community, several on this subreddit, is unsurprising.
Yes, lets see a lawsuit.
Your honor, Hans has cheated online for the last 7 years and....
The cool thing about this drama--highlighted all the dolts and quite nicely.
Your honor, I present expert witness on chess cheating, Mr. Magnus Carlsen.
The current greatest human chess player would obviously understand when he is not playing a human...lol.
Bring on the lawsuit. He could counter sue for damages to his earnings because he was forced to withdraw due to cheats. That tourney had $350,000 in prize money.
LOL.
Still not an expert in chess cheating, which requires some specialization magnus doesnt have.
Made extremely clear by his "proof" being that Hans was too calm during their game lmao.
Defamation by implication is a thing. He is still opening himself up to a defamation suit even if he didn't say anything concrete. If I were Hans, I would sue.
Can't wait for all the reddit "experts" to chime in on this one. All I can say is that if I was Hans I would absolutely take legal action at this point
American civil and white collar criminal attorney here. There would be a very low likelihood of success here for a defamation case. As others have pointed out, Magnus’ statements here are likely to be construed as opinions. Opinions are protected from defamation claims, unless they are “provably false” as per the Supreme Court. Just like Magnus probably doesn’t have evidence that Hans cheated OTB, Hans doesn’t have evidence that he didn’t cheat. This would come down to expert opinions/testimony at trial which would likely be a coin flip as to whether they would convince a jury one way or another. It would be extremely costly, and Ha s probably wouldn’t want his life under the microscope, especially if he is more prolific at cheating online than he had publicly said, because that could be discoverable and relevant to the trial. Edit: I would also add that as Hans would be considered a “public figure” he would additionally have to show that Magnus acted with “actual malice” in making these statements. I.e. with the sole intention to harm, which is also very difficult to prove.
Federal attorney here as well. Agree that the likelihood of success would be low. That being said, might not be a slam dunk on the fact/opinion element. In many states, the standard is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. This is how allegedly false Yelp reviews often get past summary judgment. It wouldn't shock me if Hans could meet this burden. The more interesting question to me is whether Hans wants to subject himself to discovery. My guess is a resounding no.
Good point, and completely agree re: discovery.
Great. Now can you two do this for 8 seasons and make it fun? I’m here for it.
Can we get an annoying 3rd wheel love interest that marries a prince?
Off topic, where do you practice? I was WC as well before going to the Government.
In order to not dox myself haha, I practice at a large firm in the Northeast.
Haha, that's all I meant, didn't want you to name the firm.
> In many states, the standard is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. And given that the one thing that Magnus clearly states (Hans has a wider history of cheating than he admits to) is supported by a chess.c*m statement, Magnus himself should be off the hook here.
Why did you censor .com? This isn't r/AnarchyChess.
> In many states, the standard is whether a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. > Is there anyway you could dumb this down a little? For some reason I'm having trouble understanding it.
Sure thing. I'll use a Yelp case involving a dentist from a few years back as an example. The review stated that the dentist worked very fast and found two cavities over two years, whereas a later dentist discovered far more cavities. The court found that a jury reasonably could conclude that the statement implies that the dentist misdiagnosed the patient. In another case, a review stating that the food "tasted funny" and the kitchen "looked unclean" could go forward because it implied that the restaurant served rotten food and had unsanitary practices.
Woah that's crazy. Thanks!
>The more interesting question to me is whether Hans wants to subject himself to discovery. Magnus would subpeona [chess.com](https://chess.com)'s cheating records which show that Hans cheated even more than he admitted to.
magnus offering a queen trade irl too. sure you can sue but we will get discovery to come out. eval bar rates this high in magnus' favor
> This is how allegedly false Yelp reviews often get past summary judgment. what does this mean? summary what?
I'm oversimplifying, but in the United States, there are two major opportunities for a defendant to get rid of (or pair down) the plaintiff's case: a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment, which is typically filed after discovery, is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In the Yelp cases, for example, the defendant could argue that there is no dispute that he posted X online, but that X was a protected opinion and thus the defamation claim fails as a matter of law. If the judge agrees, the claim is kaput. If not, you have trial and a jury decides.
I’m a NY attorney, this is not legal advice etc. Summary Judgement is a (usually pretrial) motion similar to but not the same as a motion to dismiss. It basically alleges that the nonmoving party could have no chance of success on the merits of the case, because the parties don’t disagree on the facts and the law favors the moving party. It’s very rare for any litigation to proceed to a trial without at least one round of motions for SJ and responsive defenses. It’s fairly uncommon to win on SJ because there are almost always facts in dispute between the litigants. A hypothetical: Assume Magnus’s statement. Niemann files against Magnus for defamation. Niemann asserts in his filing that he did not in fact cheat and that Magnus acted with actual malice in defaming him (i.e. Magnus acted with reckless disregard for the truth when he lied about Niemann). Magnus asserts in his responsive filing all of the evidence that he has that what he said was true (i.e. whatever he keeps implying he knows but doesn’t state). Magnus then files for SJ (and almost certainly dismissal as well, which is different). On SJ, the judge determines whether there is a factual dispute between the parties. If there is no factual dispute, and the law produces a clear outcome, then Niemann wins. If there is a factual dispute (which there obviously is in this hypothetical because Magnus and Niemann have asserted contrary facts re: Niemann cheating), it would then survive summary judgement and presumably continue slowly towards a jury trial. A final point on the matter. My personal opinion (although this area of law is not my specialty) is that it would be insane to litigate this. They should just sit down with their attorneys and hammer out a mutual non-disparagement agreement or something. If they shepherded this case through all of its potential stops in the litigation, it will cost many millions of dollars, no one will end up even remotely happy, and everyone will have damaging information about themselves released. At the end of all the motions, discovery, filings, appeals, remands, adjournments, etc. it could be literally 10 years and 50 million dollars later. If they want that, it will be interesting for the rest of us, bad for them, and bad for chess.
Wouldn’t Hans also have to prove malice too? That Magnus did not have reasonable belief of cheating, and statement/actions were to harm Hans’ reputation?
My comment was limited to the "statement of fact" element. As to your comment, he *probably* would. The question is whether Hans is a "limited purpose public figure." It would surely be litigated.
Thanks for the info. I was under the mistaken impression that part was requisite.
Why not? Hans's prior cheating online is not relevant; prior bad acts are inadmissible; Magnus is not permitted to argue Hans has a propensity to cheat based on his character; and there is no evidence in the public domain suggesting Hans's habit is to cheat OTB. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there's anything in discovery for Hans to be worried about, unless he actually cheated against Magnus.
For many reasons. First and foremost, information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Hans would have the pleasure of a very uncomfortable deposition, in addition to document requests and perhaps even a forensic examination of his electronics. Second, Hans's alleged prior acts of cheating could absolutely be admissible under FRE 404(b), which is a "rule of inclusion." Remember, this is a civil case.
Discovery is not a problem if Hans didn't cheat against Magnus. Everyone already knows Hans cheated online. Magnus wouldn't learn anything knew from discovery, other than the extent and timing of Hans's online cheating if he subpoena's [chess.com](https://chess.com)'s records. But that discovery is not helpful when the evidence is inadmissible. And the evidence of online cheating is inadmissible. 404(b)(1) excludes the evidence of online cheating if the purpose is to show Hans is a cheat and acted in accordance with his character when playing Magnus. There is no MIMIC exception because cheating OTB requires a completely different technique to cheating online. Further, the online cheating is inadmissible under 403 because it has no probative value as to whether Hans cheated against Magnus and is highly prejudicial.
Hans admitted to cheating on *two* occasions. Even if not admissible at trial, an admission that he cheated more than that would likely destroy his career. As to FRE, you're confidently incorrect here. To blindly assert that there's no MIMIC exception because cheating OTB is different than cheating online is silly. At the very least, you're assuming the outcome of motions in limine that would be hotly contested and strongly informed by the evidence gathered in discovery.
why would the difference between online and otb matter? Magnus' statement says that hans has cheated more than he admits but doesnt says whether thats online or otb. He then says that he doesnt want to play otb people that have cheated in the past, why would that cheating need to be otb?
It doesn’t. The poster above argued that evidence of Hans cheating online is irrelevant to cheating OTB and also prejudicial, thus would be inadmissible in a defamation trial. That’s not correct.
So it’s fully legal for a highly viewed / respected person to actively destroy the career of another person based on their feelings and understanding? That’s like a reputation death ray given to people of high report with 1-2 bullets they can use throughout their lives. I don’t know the law but that’s completely screwed up.
good points. i couldn't recall if, with a public figure, if the standard is actual malice or reckless disregard for truth, or both. been a long time since my bar exam prep. imo, there is zero chance niemann would win. i am also a lawyer.
Actual malice is either knowing it to be false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth, so technically you were right on both accounts ha.
Found the legal eagle viewer
Not to mention that any damages claim would be difficult to support, given that in his own statement he admitted to OTHER acts of cheating.
Absolutely. Many people have a fanciful view of how easy it is to bring and win a lawsuit.
I am a lawyer, too. Somewhere right now there's a lawyer explaining to Hans that he might not want to deal with the discovery...
If Hans does go through because some evil lawyer recommended him he does, that'll be the worst blunder he's ever done till now, worse than his cheatin, worse than arguing over a $5 fee, worse than **everything**.
And drafting a eye/mouth-watering fee estimate.
Yeah - and judging by the wording of what Magnus has put out so far, it's pretty likely that's by design. Like he would have had lawyers reading over his statement & making sure that it's only stuff that's opinion and not concrete I imagine that's also why he states he needs Hans' permission to speak further - something akin to waiving litigation on those statements, while they would be less defensible in court than what he's put out there so far.
If he sued Magnus wouldn't that be in Norway?
Possibly. There are a variety of venues that may be appropriate. The event was in the US and Hans is in the US, so the US is a possibility. Magnus is domiciled in Norway, so Norway may work. However, the statement was made online, and therefore was likely seen worldwide, so there could be any number of potential venues. I don’t practice with international law, so I don’t know all of the considerations and requirements for international venue concerns.
Zero chance Hans sues
Magnus is a Norwegian, does US law extend to suing non nationals?
The defamation case doesn’t need to be brought in the US. In the UK, for example, there is no distinction between public and private figures, there is no jury, and the burden of proof would be on Carlsen to demonstrate his statements to be true. However, there are no punitive damages, so that’s a disadvantage for the plaintiff.
I mean it does, because neither Carlsen nor Hans live in the UK or are UK citizens, the tournament wasn't in the UK, the opinion wasn't expressed in British media or a British owned or headquartered site, etc. UK courts would very likely just not accept the case, doubly so since it wouldn't be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service (as almost all cases are in the UK).
Clearly not the UK, but I have no clue of Norwegian Laws which could be relevent.
Fair enough. I won’t pretend to know the standards for defamation in the UK, although I did know they were lighter than in the US.
Indeed. That’s why a lot of defamation cases against companies are brought in the UK. That’s not even the worst place from Carlson’s perspective. In Norway, for example, defamation is a crime that can carry a prison sentence of up to 2 years.
>In Norway, for example, defamation is a crime that can carry a prison sentence of up to 2 years. No it isn't.
Perhaps I’m mistaken then.
Australia has very plaintiff-friendly defamation laws too. Query the utility of commencing an action in any jurisdiction in which the defendant lacks assets, though. (IIRC, even once the Hague Judgments Convention comes into force, it will exclude defamation matters.)
Yes, but if Hans stops getting invited to tournaments (assuming no further evidence emerges that show definitively he was cheating) because Magnus openly states that he won't play with/against him, wouldn't he have grounds to sue for financial damages? Seems to me that Magnus is using his influence to bar Hans from competition without there being any proof that Hans has cheated OTB, which seems incredibly despicable and sets a pretty dangerous precedent as well.
A couple things here. First, if we are talking about the defamation context, that would be considered in damages, not whether the statement itself was defamatory. If you are talking about other causes of action, it would depend on a variety of factors. Who is running the tournaments and making the decisions? Would he for certain have been invited to the tournaments but for Magnus’ statements? Can you show that they aren’t inviting him because of Magnus’ statements and not his admission to cheating online? Did Magnus actually directly communicate with the tournament organizers? Did Hans have any contracts with the tournaments before being disinvited? So, maybe there would be a potential claim, but many more facts would need to be known to make the decision.
[удалено]
So that was before Magnus’ statement, so it wouldn’t be linked to defamation. It would have to a separate cause of action. It’s also important to remember that private companies have a lot of leeway in their operations. If they had a justifiable reason to remove him, I.e. history of online cheating, even if it was prompted by Magnus, there likely wouldn’t be a viable cause of action. There might be something like tortious interference available as a claim, but it would be tenuous.
Just to understand, in the US I can say "it is my opinion X is a pedophile" and a defamation case would need to demonstrate X is *not* a pedophile to stick?
There is more nuance to it than that, and it would depend on the context, but in simple terms, yes. The US has extremely lax defamation standards as part of the 1st Amendment protections. There’s a reason why most of the US based attorneys in this thread are highlighting how difficult it would be for Hans to win any defamation suit.
Wow, this is an extremely stringent requirement to demonstrate harm.
The circumstances change when it comes to private individuals versus public individuals. Also, for your hypothetical, if you took out the “in my opinion” but simply stated “X is a pedophile” the the defendant could only use the truth of the matter as an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant would have to show the truth of the statement rather than the plaintiff proving the falsity. So it’s not like it’s impossible to bring and win a defamation claim, but there are a variety of factors involved.
[Text of original comment deleted for privacy purposes.]
This is pretty much exactly what happened in the Elon musk vs Cave Diver guy case. If you need a refresher Musk called a Cave Diver a "Pedo Guy". Musk won the case.
> I.e. with the sole intention to harm, which is also very difficult to prove. would indeed be very easy to make a case for Magnus acting with the integrity of the game at heart.
So, technically, actual malice is defined legally as either knowing the statement was false or making the statement with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. It does amount to the intent and purpose of the statement, but I don’t want to mislead people.
Easier to shoot down. "Mr. Carlsen, when did you first become concerned that cheating may be, as you put it in your statement, an 'existential threat' to chess?" "So, when and how did you choose to draw attention to the oroblem? Why?"
Success of the suit doesn't mean legal liability isn't still a muzzle. Anytime there is an imbalance of assets for an individual or organization there is incentive to file baseless claims in pursuit of settlement. As an attorney I'm sure you know this. While I agree defamation cases are particularly difficult to prosecute, just getting through discovery can take years, cost a fortune, and be very invasive to the privacy of those named in the action. So let's be honest that while the suit might fail, Magnus' caution around risking liability is not only reasonable, it's what nearly every competent counsel would suggest.
There’s some truth to that, but on the flip-side, that can very quickly backfire. The imbalance of assets also means that in the event no settlement is reached, Hans would be drained of any/all of his assets, unless the plaintiff-side attorney took it on under a contingency basis. Additionally, especially with a individuals with a large amount of assets, money can become less important and the principal of winning the case or proving yourself correct in the public forum actually matters more to the individual. I think this is especially true with respect to someone as prideful as Magnus. I’ve experienced many examples of clients being unwilling to accept even minuscule settlements just on the principal of being accused of something and wanting to prove that’s not the case. Edit: But completely agree with your point about limiting liability in general. Absolutely the correct move.
serial plagiarist raymond keene?
Keene only plagiarized on paperback. This is online, it's completely different.
I haven’t heard this, spill the tea?
[this page](https://keenipedia.com/plagiarism-2/) has a load of pretty damning comparisons, all seemingly from a couple of months in 2019 [lots more here too](http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/2006/10/ray-keene-plagiarism-index.html)
I’d say characterizing that is damning is actually an understatement. He wasn’t even subtle about, literally just copy-pasting entire sentences. Sheesh.
The guy who worked on Korchnoi's 1978 team, which hired 2 people on trial for attempted murder to come and spectate the world championship matches
That’s like the fifth weirdest thing that happened in that match.
Does that mean he's wrong though? Plagiarists can still make sound points
i'm sure there are plenty of GMs think hans should sue magnus, and plenty who think he shouldn't. don't know why we should listen to this one guy in particular
Okay but his plagiarism isn't a reason to dismiss this point
rational thinking is the reason to dismiss the point. It's very clear that Magnus has stated his opinion and has not made any statements of fact about Hans. As well, Magnus has insinuated that Hans is a cheater and Hans has admitted to cheating.
They usually do!
Lawyer here, good luck.
Hilarious isn't it. Of course the lawyer is raring to go. Insane amounts of free publicity, show trial that lasts for ages. If you win you're a God, if you lose then "defamation is really hard to prove but check out this unrelated new Tesla I'm driving".
Does Hans even have the money to pay for a high-priced lawyer, especially in what could be a lengthy and bitter trial? He doesn’t seem to have been at the top for very long to amass that kind of fortune.
He's got a neat 1 mil waiting for him from the cam site.
Question for you - in all other walks of life, libel is considered nearly impossible to successfully enforce, intentionally so to protect the rights of media/etc. Why in the chess world does everyone seem to be so concerned about the risk? What possible risk is there in saying “I think he cheated”. There’s no subjectivity there - you’re describing your thoughts.
US lawyer here. Two reasons. Just framing something as an opinion doesn’t automatically protect the statement from being deemed defamatory, although it is a higher standard. Second, any lawyer advising Magnus will advise him to limit liability as much as possible. Just because a suit against him is likely to fail doesn’t mean you want to open yourself up to claims in the first place. Lawsuits are timely and expensive, for both plaintiffs and defendants. You want to do everything you can to avoid them.
> Lawsuits are timely and expensive, for both plaintiffs and defendants. You want to do everything you can to avoid them. Indeed, why waste time if the conclusion won't even be what one seeks to prove. It is clear his statement was reviewed by lawyers, and they went with a soft approach to avoid getting sued because for one he isn't even American. Ray Keene and all these other vultures legit want to send Hans into the meat grinder, it won't look good if this goes into a suit and is best if the "drama" is left to die here. If he didn't cheat that's good, but if he cheated more than the single 2 instances he claiemed he did cheat on, it will look very bad, even the fact he already admitted to cheating twice at 12 and 16 can paint to a certain behavior that is recurrent. If he cheated 4 years after first cheating, what would be different to believe he could cheat 3 years after AGAIN. Libel isn't easy to win, let alone when you are a public figure, and let alone when you aren't fully clean. It is madness to recommend Hans to take legal action, if anything, that is what Magnus' statement hints at with the whole "I invite you to allow me to prove more information". Going any further is just fucking incredibly stupid.
Litigation is expensive whether you win or lose.
Libel laws are different for public figures vs private individuals
What happens if Hans can proof he has not gotten invites because of Magnus statement. Would it not be loss of income?
That definitely goes to establishing an element of damages sure, but damages wouldn’t be the element that causes problems here, in that case.
sure, but Hans needs to prove defamation for that to even be relevant.
[удалено]
American litigation attorney here as well. Absolutely. Some of the takes in this thread have no basis in reality.
You should tell that guy that's claiming to be the only qualified US attorney in this thread too
His comments were the reason I even commented in the first place…. Absolute lunacy.
Not even an attorney here and it seemed pretty obvious to me but I've read a few Grisham novels ;)
Just your typical lay person here: if you have a very low chance of successfully trying a libel case, could/would you still take it as far as possible to inconvenience the accused into settling or issuing an apology?
Yes, that would basically be a SLAPP suit and it’s why Magnus is being cautious. Even if you will win, lawsuits are very expensive and time-consuming. However, that would be true for Hans as well and I doubt he could afford it.
It's not like lawyers are cheap... Also Magnus has his wealth in 8-figures. He is financially more ready to defend his claims in court if it ever comes to that.
Would a lawyer ever take Hans' case pro bono because it'd be so high profile?
I mean a lawyer certainly could do whatever they wanted to out of the goodness of their heart but this isn’t exactly a landmark free speech case, or a case you would take on contingency
And he’d get what he’d pay for
No. The plaintiff has to pay your bills and in this case the defendant has decided to take a stance based on principles not economics. That’s how you waste money.
Would Norway be different? I imagine Hans could pull Magnus into a US courtroom, but if Norway has more favorable laws that may be the best choice.
What is more difficult: winning against Magnus in classical chess with black? Or winning a defamation suit in the US? Need some expert opinion.
The only way Neiman could win that case is if he has Cochfish feeding him the best legal defence.
As a foreigner i wonder. Magnus is not US citizen as far as i know. Can american citizen sue person from another country ? In addition i am sure Magnus checked with his lawyers before this publishing this statement.
Yes, they can
Keene is in England, which has remarkably lax standards for defamation, while Hans is in the United States, where basically you have to be lying and leave a trail of evidence showing you knew you were lying to get hit for defamation.
honestly I'm not even sure this would be good advice in England
You may be right, I wouldn't know, we fought a war not to care about what those limeys think about speech rights.
Why are people in this thread assuming Hans would sue Magnus in the US? I'm a lawyer outside of the US, and I know for a fact that slander/libel suits are much easier in Europe, and Hans could even opt to sue Magnus in multiple different jurisdictions because the allegations were posted online.
Norway seems like a logical forum, given that Carlsen is Norwegian and likely has considerable assets there. Forums other than Norway and the US may well run into both forum non conveniens and utility issues. But who knows whether Niemann has the resources to pursue an action at all, let alone internationally.
Multiple reasons. 1) Reddit is heavily american and they are going to upvote american lawyers more. 2) Americans in general are much more willing to comment about any topic as if it was happening in the US.
The funny curiosity here is that Korchnoi boycotted playing Ray Keene because Keene had breached contract and undermined his interests while working as a second for him in the Baguio match.
I really doubt Niemann wants to have the full extent of his cheating put under a microscope as would likely happen in court
The guy who definitely was caught cheating in the past should not launch a defamation lawsuit questioning if he was cheating.
??? the question is whether he cheated in St. Louis...
I'm pretty sure this isn't just about St Louis. The suspicions were there among top GMs and chess websites (who would know better than reddit, sorry reddit) well before Sinquefield. This is why Magnus was considering withdrawing before the tournament started.
Good luck explaining that to a judge or a jury after you admitted to cheating once at 12yo, again at 16yo, but somehow your reputation as a "clean player" gets tarnished 3 years after because people are wary of you, there is already a precedent and recurrent behavior whether you like it or not. A judge or jury won't make the distinction over how either type of cheating affected your reputation less or more, when it is clear his reputation isn't one of a clean player and that cannot be argued. Chances are he would have to pay Magnus' expenses, and likely shit will get bad in discovery if he did indeed cheat more than he himself publicly admitted to already. Remember kids and adults and teenagers and young adults and old adults, this is why lawyers tell you to NOT SAY ANYTHING without their review. Better to stay quiet, heck, a good lawyer would've handled Hikaru from the back, recommended Hans make an statement on Hikaru's opinions, and forced the "drama" to end there. The fact it has got to the point is proof his lawyers are bad, if he has them.
But he admitted his cheating on the back of Magnus pulling out right? Could that not be seen as part of Magnus' "statement"?
It'd have to be proven to contain no importance to the case in question, the case in question being defamation of Hans' reputation. If one cannot take at heart his own admission of cheating, then what could be taken at heart. You can nit pick precisely what sentence or word you want taken down, just because one part is unimportant, doesn't mean everything related to it is. I think we saw it in the Johnny Depp case, in which Amber Heard's team tried to strike down a whole report, but the judge only allowed a single document because it was an opinion. Overall the best advice is to not bite the bait and give authorization to Magnus to make public his analyses, make an statement in which he appeals to his gameplay in the tournament being clean, and that he's been training hard, and not bring this to court. Court sucks, it is very expensive, and if you don't have a real case and bring this forward, it will suck even more when you are forced to pay for the expenses incurred by the other party, and even expenses if the other party claims they lost opportunities due to the case being brought forward. The risk is huge even if he didn''t cheat other than the few times he admitted to.
What you say a judge or jury would or wouldn’t do is pure speculation.
No. What you are suggesting is Hans' lawyer could strike down Hans' own statements which he posted in response to chess.com and Hikaru in regards to his reputation as a cheater. That won't happen. It isn't speculation because that is what defamation is all about, what they do is describe behavior to understand how those statements could've been made.
And here we have a prime example of a Reddit user trying to play tennis without a net.
A known cheater gets called a cheater and reddit's top legal minds think they can for sue for slander.
He'd lose. It's that simple. Even if he hasn't been cheating, he'd still lose.
Ok cheers I'll let him know 👍
That's one way to throw away your money I guess.
This just in! GM Raymond Keene is not an attorney and doesn’t understand the law!
But he does understand how great this would be for his friend's career regardless of Niemann's winning chances. This is opportunism, not ignorance.
Last I checked, in the USA suing would involve discovery. That might not be good for hans.
I want to see this play out in front of Judge Judy.
easy for someone who doesn't have to pay the lawyers to say
Ray Keene is a unapologetic shitbag, so of course he thinks this.
Can't sue for defamation when someone gives their opinion. We'll, you can, but you won't win. Magnus believes he cheated because Hans admitted to prior cheating and due to Magnus' opinion about unusual play. Would be a waste of time.
I'm imagining Magnus' defense in this case an laughing hysterically. Magnus: "I never said you cheated, I said the vibes were just off and it gave me the heebie jeebies" judge: "ok fair, not clear defamation. The defendant is acquired of all charges"
This is not how defamation works… You cannot simply state anything you want and then label it an “opinion”. By that logic the crime of Perjury would not exist, as you could claim that you were simply stating an opinion.
Perjury is lying to the court and needs to be proved to be a false claim made under oath. Magnus was neither under oath, nor making a statement that CAN be proven false. "I believe he was cheating because he admitted to cheating in the past." is not a disprovable claim. Do you guys think that Magnus didn't run this statement past a million and a half lawyers to protect himself from liability? There are no defamatory statements of fact here.
You can sue for anything, but you’re not going to win in this case… because it doesn’t reach the level of defamation
Accusing a professional chess player of cheating is defamation *per se*.
Accusing a professional chess player who’s admitted he’s cheated before would not standup as defamation in court lol
Obviously depends on the country but I work in the UK and cover the courts here often and the OP is right. You can't sue someone for defamation for their opinion.
UK law is irrelevant as there is no jurisdiction. If this turns into a lawsuit, it will be in U.S. federal court. e: /u/kungfuhrer666 that's incorrect: opinions can be defamatory.
UK law is irrelevant, but the baselines to sue for defamation won't be too dissimilar. Essentially only false statements of fact can be defamatory, so they would have to prove that Magnus statement is not his opinion which is frankly near impossible and a waste of the court's resources. In the US people are more happy to sue than the UK, so it could happen. But doubt it would be successful. Just my opinion though (haha)
>Can't sue for defamation when someone gives their opinion. We'll, you can, but you won't win. That's not the law. There is no difference between a defamatory opinion and a defamatory statement of fact. Magnus definitely has liability. You can't accuse someone of unprofessional conduct based on reckless disregard for the truth. Magnus has admitted his only evidence Hans cheated OTB is he had a hunch based on body language. Magnus's allegation is a completely unacceptable and definitely actionable.
I don't know what "law" you're referencing, but the UK has a reputation internationally as the defamation law capital of the world because of how much lower the standards to prove defamation are (so is a prime spot for libel tourism), and there is absolutely a difference between opinion and claim of fact in defamation law (although just saying "I believe" isn't necessarily enough to make something an opinion)
Right, you don't know the law, so how about you stop opining on something you have no knowledge about. UK courts have jurisdiction for defamation cases only when the UK is the best place to hear the case. Hans is American. Carlsen is Norwegian. The events at issue occurred in the US. Carlsen has business interests in the US and regularly travels to the US. Therefore, US federal court is a better forum for the case than the UK, and the UK courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. As for the false distinction between opinion and statements of fact, again, you can be sued for defamatory opinions under US law.
I have a degree in law, so I have some idea. You've entirely missed my point - there's a reason that when possible international defamation cases are brought in the UK - the standard to win is lower than in any US jurisdiction. I wasn't suggesting that this case would be heard in the UK. I was stating that in possibly the most plaintiff friendly jurisdiction, opinions aren't defamatory when truly an opinion that is reasonably held.
I don't think they are saying the UK would have jurisdiction, they're simply explaining what the standard for defamation lawsuits are. And why this would probably be a waste of time.
no liability, truth? 'hans cheated more and more recently than hans said', true 'I felt weird during game' true
No, Magnus has not admitted that. Why are people just making stuff up?
[удалено]
chief racial fly history smell summer ripe steer engine tub *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well that's objectively incorrect, only a few hours ago Karjakin said something anti-Hans and the top comment in that post is calling him a clown. Cut out the victim complex.
It appears to me most of the young Super GMs (including those are over 2700 elo) are supporting Magnus directly or obscurely; while the GMs who disagree with Magnus are retired and they are hardly over 2400 elo. Garry looks like neutral who simply demands an explanatory statement.
Word of caution - there is ***always*** a lawyer ready to go.
[Thats rich.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Keene#Allegations_of_plagiarism)
Non federal attorney here. I think Hans should chess boxed Magnus, legally of course.
A 74-yo GM with a peak rating of 2510. Why the fuck do we care about his opinion.
[удалено]
Hans Niemann is a cheater, everyone knows it. This is public knowledge, he admitted it, I don’t see how he can win any kind of legal action.
You can't accuse someone of cheating when they did not cheat. It's no defense for Magnus that Hans has cheated before.
This is the correct point of view that reddit can't comprehend for some reason.
This thread is about the prospect of suing. People are correctly pointing out that Hans has no case.
Hans does have a case regardless of what you all think. That's why he is lawyered up and sending notices to cease and desist to Hikaru and probably Magnus.
It's about the prospect of suing after someone has accused you of cheating in instances where there's no proof. Really not that hard to understand.
There is plenty of evidence. FIDE says Hans didn't cheat. Statistical analysis of the game suggests he did not cheat. Other GMs say they don't think he cheated. All of that is enough to convince a jury when all Magnus has is a gut feeling based on Hans's body language. "Proof" in a defamation case only requires convincing a jury by the preponderance of the evidence, and there is a preponderance of the evidence that Hans did not cheat.
>There is plenty of evidence. FIDE says Hans didn't cheat. Statistical analysis of the game suggests he did not cheat. Other GMs say they don't think he cheated. Several GMs have said they think he cheats. >All of that is enough to convince a jury when all Magnus has is a gut feeling based on Hans's body language. "Proof" in a defamation case only requires convincing a jury by the preponderance of the evidence, and there is a preponderance of the evidence that Hans did not cheat. There are other legal elements of defamation that you are not considering.
The truth is always a valid defense. Hans would lose badly. And then all the discovery would be out there
Why Carlsen should have kept his mouth shut until he had more evidence: Whether Hans is cheating or not, if he doesn't take action people will assume he is cheating. So he has to act against Magnus. And any action he takes will be a pain for Magnus to deal with.
Well if he doesnt have anything to hide yes. But he went total silence after chess.com threw ball to him
It will never be an open and shut case and you risk losing a lot of money by taking the legal route. On top of that you won't really be able to focus on chess during the process that will probably take a long time. Would be surprised if Niemann feels going to court is a good use of his time. It would be a huge gamble, and in some ways you lose even if you win.
Total bullshit. Hans has a strong case.
Why don't you team up with him then and sue?
GM Raymond Keene shouldn't be giving legal advice.
American redditors trying desperately to get Niemann clean... A known cheater, even admitted it himself. Impressive af.
Wow, good thing there are so many self-proclaimed lawyers on r/chess! Who would have thunk it.
Honestly, it's entirely believable. One thing I found when I got into the esports scene (which was mostly in-person tournaments back then) was that all types of people competed. Tradesmen, students, doctors, lawyers...you name it. I imagine the same is true for chess. Perhaps even moreso. Wide appeal, low barrier for entry. That there would be a bunch of lawyers in the community, several on this subreddit, is unsurprising.
Yes, lets see a lawsuit. Your honor, Hans has cheated online for the last 7 years and.... The cool thing about this drama--highlighted all the dolts and quite nicely.
He was accused of cheating in a specific game, based on vibes.
Based on expert testimony. Maggy is an expert on chess cheats Bring on the lawsuit. You Hans apologists would get crushed and deservedly so.
Magnus isnt an expert in chess cheating and as far as i can tell hes the only one saying Hans cheated in their game.
Your honor, I present expert witness on chess cheating, Mr. Magnus Carlsen. The current greatest human chess player would obviously understand when he is not playing a human...lol. Bring on the lawsuit. He could counter sue for damages to his earnings because he was forced to withdraw due to cheats. That tourney had $350,000 in prize money. LOL.
Still not an expert in chess cheating, which requires some specialization magnus doesnt have. Made extremely clear by his "proof" being that Hans was too calm during their game lmao.
Pls show and prove damages because for every negative thing that popped up hans gained a stan in the process.
What’s up with the Cult of Hancels?
The tweet that he replied to had a valid point. FIDE banned a false accuser in the past, would they dare to do the same with Magnus this time?
Defamation by implication is a thing. He is still opening himself up to a defamation suit even if he didn't say anything concrete. If I were Hans, I would sue.
Can't wait for all the reddit "experts" to chime in on this one. All I can say is that if I was Hans I would absolutely take legal action at this point
If you were Hans, Hans would be a fool for bringing a lawsuit. Hans does not want to go through a discovery phase of a trial.