X might win if the statement-maker is influential enough that their ("I think") opinion would cause X's reputation to be damaged, e.g., if I were a doctor and I expressed an unproven opinion about someone's health knowing that it could cause ordinary people to assume something about X's behaviour/morals.
Generally, though, saying "I think..." is not as satisfying. Who doesn't have an opinion? I think all sort of things, but no one has to take me seriously. If I had proof of what I thought, I'd express it objectively and show my proof.
I would differentiate between libel and hate speech though. Hate speech tends to have more of an intention to incite ill-will against another group, while libel goes towards reputational damage.
Comments 2
Reply
Generally, though, saying "I think..." is not as satisfying. Who doesn't have an opinion? I think all sort of things, but no one has to take me seriously. If I had proof of what I thought, I'd express it objectively and show my proof.
I would differentiate between libel and hate speech though. Hate speech tends to have more of an intention to incite ill-will against another group, while libel goes towards reputational damage.
Reply
Leave a comment