I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
The thing you're missing here is that "opinion" is a term of art in this context, and has a meaning broader than its usual one. Importantly, for these purposes, any inference is considered "opinion".
So "Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders" could be a statement of fact, but "The evidence I've shown you demonstrates that Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders" is necessarily a statement of opinion in the legal sense.
> Suddenly I am wondering whether reports of "police have at times consulted with psychics" will enter in any way.
But did they consult with psychics, or a greek lady who took their money, lit a candle, and said some ambiguous woo woo bullshit that happened to be right by coincidence?
I am not a lawyer but as I understand it you are allowed to have an opinion (eg saying "I think Sam cheated on his test"), but you're not allowed to imply you have inside knowledge or proof when you don't, eg saying "I saw Sam sneaking looks at his notes during the test", when in fact you didn't see anything.
You can shorten the first statemebt to "Sam cheated on the test" and argue in court that it is just stating a personal belief that you are entitled to. You don't have to preface every statement with "I think" or "I believe", those can be implied when you make a statement.
But if you said the second and included the detail of claiming to have seen it yourself, and later it comes out in court that you knowingly lied about having seen the alleged cheating and did not see anything, you can likely be held liable for defamation.
It probably makes more sense if you read "opinion" here not as a professed statement of belief but rather as "conclusory statement." Note that an incorrect conclusory statement based on undisclosed premises is potentially defamatory, as is one based on incorrect disclosed premises. The seeming loophole is that an incorrect conclusory statement that is based on correct disclosed premises (i.e., it was incorrectly derived) is not potentially defamatory.
What I don’t get is how that loophole doesn’t nullify the entire concept of defamation. Someone says “Mr. Zest was the man who stabbed my father to death last Tuesday”, I show them proof I was out of town, and they continue to tell the story because they incorrectly and unreasonably concluded that my proof was false. Surely that doesn’t mean they’ll win my defamation lawsuit - if it did how could a defendant ever lose?
I wish I could buy this, but you really don't want it to be illegal to say "politician X is a murderer", because they started a war or denied food to orphans or something. I don't know if there's a viable way to draw the line between that and the case in the article. (Note: safety from crazy people who believe the claim doesn't work, since people are definitely going to go after politician X.
Not a lawyer, but my interpretation of the post is that a cartomantic reading is an opinion, e.g. "In my opinion, these cards indicate that Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders" could be a protected expression. If she lied about what cards she drew, or she lied about her interpretation (both of which sound hard to prove) then she might be in trouble.
I don't think she is going to accomplish too much by suing her. If she is is a crackpot it will reinforce her and her crackpot followers. It would be better to sue TikTok.
That bit you quoted, “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders”, was the author's summary, rather than the actual statements made by Guillard.
