I feel like we had this conversation upthread, but … who owns the burden of proof here? Would Niemann have to demonstrate both that he wasn’t cheating and that Carlsen knew he (i.e., Niemann) wasn’t cheating? Or would Carlsen have to demonstrate proof that Niemann was cheating?
It’s a US lawsuit, and the US has very weak libel laws. Carlsen just has to show that he had a reasonable belief that Niemann was cheating. And that would be after demonstrating that the statements in question are factual in nature, not just opinions.
If Niemann is treated as a public figure–and as a Grandmaster, I think he might be over the threshold–demonstrating libel gets even harder. Basically, Carlsen would have to have known that his statements were false, and made them anyway.
The lawsuit contains a few other bits, though. Specifically:
(3) unlawful group boycott under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, et. seq.;
(4) tortious interference with contract and business expectancies; and (5) civil conspiracy.
I’ve no idea about that stuff.
That shouldn’t be hard, given Niemann’s admitted cheating in the past and Chess.com’s findings of more than 100 other instances.
Agreed. Carlsen doesn’t have to prove that he knew for sure that Niemann was cheating in this particular case. An admitted history of cheating seems like more than enough to establish reasonable belief. Plus, while I haven’t followed every statement that Carlsen made, from what I saw he was fairly careful not to make a direct accusation.
And of course, a court case will allow Carlsen to publish exactly what evidence he had.
I think the chess.com work protects him more than teenage cheating admissions. He was making these comments after losing to Niemann, it’s pretty clear that’s what he was talking about. He can point to chess.com as the reason for his belief that Niemann cheated in that match.
I think you overestimate the libel laws here. Carlsen really needs very little protection here.
If Niemann is a public figure, then the standard rises to “actual malice”. Don’t read too much into those words–it’s a legal term of art. It’s defined as a statement made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Carlsen couldn’t possibly have known for sure if Niemann was cheating or not. And as an obvious expert in the game, he also clearly did not state anything with reckless disregard. Whether he was right or wrong is basically irrelevant.
But really, I think Niemann’s case is worse than all that. I haven’t read the whole filing, but there are a bunch of statements like this:
- Carlsen knew full well that withdrawing in the middle of a prestigious, high-profile
professional chess tournament like the Sinquefield Cup is virtually unheard of for any top-level
chess player, let alone the reigning Chess World Champion widely considered to be the greatest
chess player in history.
Yeah, I don’t think there’s any law obligating Carlsen to remain in the tournament, regardless of his reasons. That it might be interpreted as an accusation of cheating isn’t on Carlsen.
I’m not sure why Nieman would file this suit in the U.S., which as you note has some of the toughest standards for proving libel in the world. Given the worldwide scope of chess, I’d think he’d try to bring suit in a friendlier jurisdiction.
Which of those friendlier jurisdictions would accept this suit? A citizen of jurisdiction A, suing a citizen of jurisdiction B for actions in relation to events in jurisdiction C, can’t generally just decide to sue in jurisdiction D.
As a civil action, Nieman may only need to argue that he suffered harm in the country where he’s filing, not necessarily that the allegedly libelous events occurred there. That’s why Britain used to be the premier destination for celebrities and tycoons to sue publishers and media outlets for libel – it was relatively easy to file there and the process was much more favorable to plaintiffs. I understand they did tighten up their libel laws a few years back to make it harder to “venue shop.”
So where is it you think Nieman would have benefited from suing now?
Legal analysis of the suit.
Good read!
Is there any way of getting that analysis anywhere else? Twitter just puts a big box in front of the screen asking me to sign up or log in.
You should be able to hit “sign up” and then just X out of the next screen.
Or, you can use Nitter, which is a kind of open-source alternative front-end to Twitter:
https://nitter.net/AkivaMCohen/status/1583225640873959424
I use a Twitter->Nitter redirect plugin so I don’t have to use Twitter directly.
thanks to you and pulykamell for both suggestions, one less annoyance in my life
Its hard to read that on my phone. Some of the docs don’t display.
I’m not seeing how they arrive at the conclusion that Niemann is a public figure. Being well known only within the chess community an excellent definition of ‘not well known’. It should be easy to exclude from a jury anyone that ever heard of him before.
Despite what some are calling weak laws against defamation they do well to protect people in a case like this where the defamatory statements can make the defendant look like a sore loser and a financial loss and damage to a person’s career are
established. Statements about his admitted cheating as a teenager can easily be cast aside as irrelevant to this case. His best defense would be that he was led to believe there was evidence of cheating from others like chess.com. That would counter any assumptions that he fabricated the charge of cheating because he lost a match to Niemann.
There is such a thing as a “limited purpose public figure.” From Wikipedia:
- a limited purpose public figure, those who have “thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.” A “particularized determination” is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted:[3]
A person can become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. A person can also become a “limited public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about] … Terry Rakolta [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married … with Children] were fair comments … within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a “limited public figure”.
Even assuming that role, there is, I suppose, a question of whether Hans had already been thrust into the limelight at the time the crucial statements were made.
…and my post is my cite.