You're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to shoot them. It's a meaningful d...

nerdponx · 2024-12-27T20:04:21 1735329861

You're not "allowed" to do that. Frivolous litigation is against federal law in the USA. There are also laws against harassment.

You can get away with it, but you aren't technically allowed to do it.

crustaceansoup · 2024-12-28T23:10:52 1735427452

Is there a meaningful difference between "technically not allowed but unenforced" and "allowed"? People and smaller corporations are drowned all the time with no real recourse other than "just be more rich so you can hire your own giant legal/PR/marketing teams"

potsandpans · 2024-12-28T22:52:08 1735426328

Oh, well if you're allowed to do that, then it's ok i guess.

maeil · 2024-12-27T19:23:09 1735327389

> You're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to shoot them. It's a meaningful distinction.

So what? Why is this meaningful?

thephyber · 2024-12-27T19:54:13 1735329253

One of these things is unremarkable to the extent that it happens all day, every day.

The other is uncommon in developed countries that mostly follow the rule of law.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

itishappy · 2024-12-27T20:04:47 1735329887

What's meaningful about the distinction between killing someone and suing/smearing them? Really?

The dispute process is rather different, for starters.