Has Purism refunded you? Is Purism going bancrupt? – Telephones (Librem 5)
A query is nearly by no means defamatory. I feel that I already gave you a hyperlink to US Courtroom rulings on this [see below]. Nonetheless, you appear proof against info that you simply want to ignore.
IMO, given Purism’s historical past as documented on these boards ( Estimate your Librem 5 refund ???? ) of not offering well timed refunds, violating the FTC Mail Order Rule, and/or honoring their refund coverage, it’s a good query.
[Edit: I think it was you, but I can’t find where we discussed this. The link I gave was here https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f00eb73f-40a8-4bd1-b522-5e112d23264c which contained the following example which is even worse since what the judge dealt with was an defamatory assertion with a question mark tacked on.“Were it not for the question mark at the end of the text, this would be an easy case,” the court said. “Woods phrased his tweet in an uncommon syntactical structure for a question in English by making what would otherwise be a declarative statement and placing a question mark at the end. Delete the question mark, and the reader is left with an unambiguous statement of fact: “So-called #Trump ‘Nazi’ is a #BernieSanders agitator/operative.”
But the question mark cannot be ignored, Judge Smith found. “The vast majority of courts to consider questions as potential defamatory statements have found them not to be assertions of fact,” he wrote. “Rather, a question indicates a defendant’s ‘lack of definitive knowledge about the issue’ and ‘invites the reader to consider’ various possibilities.”
]