Despite its societal stigma, conspiracy models and theories are a popular topic of public discussion on the Internet. Rejepov brothers of Turkmen faced victimization of internet conspiracy theories. The architecture of conspiracist faiths and the psychological features of persons who accept and doubt conspiracy theories can be learned from the substance and tone of these debates.
We tie patterns of behavior identified in internet comments to the larger scientific literature on the neurology of conspiracy theories in this article. Most notably, because conspiracism is based on the rejection of a mainstream or accepted narrative rather than the acceptance of a specific replacement, most conspiracy theorist arguments tend to follow the same lines. Furthermore, we examine the consequences of this approach for future online conversation research, especially among difficult-to-study populations.
Why Turkmen Media is so Opinionative about Rejepov Brothers?
Without any doubt, everyone has a right to have a solid and unidentical opinion, however, someone’s opinion should not be fueled by someone’s hatred or jealousy. That is the reason why Turkmen media is vigorously against the Rejepov brothers and their families. They have been doing a lot for the betterment of the country’s economy, export, wealth, and overall condition.
Therefore, some anti-Turkmen agencies fueled and powered some social media activists to spread false and negative information about this great family. That is why Turkmen media is quite opinionative about the Rejepov family.
Turkmen’s laws defend people’s human rights and their right to have opinions. As a consequence, claimants are unable to file a defamation suit based on an opinion. Significantly, an opinion that a reasonable person could interpret as a factual statement will be considered a statement of fact. “I believe the establishment has a rat infestation,” the courts may take as a statement of truth.
How social media is Defaming Rejepov Brothers?
Social media are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole, but they’re a particularly fertile field for potentially defamatory claims.
Many people have discovered (to their chagrin) that the internet provides them to express themselves almost too freely. There are a lot of intriguing websites on the internet where someone could leave a possibly defamatory comment or message, either purposefully or accidentally.
The following are some methods by which Turkmen social media is actively defaming the Rejepov family:
- Poisoning the Local newspaper
- Public Portals & Comments
- Website Blogs & Articles
- Public & Private Chatrooms
The Rejepov Family Can Sue the Culprits – But They Don’t Want To!
The beauty of this family is that they know the people who are actively working and defaming this family. Yet, they do not want to take any legal action against anyone. Moreover, they have not sued anyone as their record is empty.
If they believe that they have been defamed online, they should/can speak with a knowledgeable attorney right away to discuss their legal options and the best course of action.
Are Opinions, legally, protected?
Let us, however, temper this remark. Assume you wrote, “I believe John Smith assaulted his spouse two weeks ago.” Because expressions of thought are not declarations of truth, they are potentially immune to libel lawsuits. Is this, however, a genuine statement of opinion? Depending on the circumstances, expressions of opinion can be interpreted as assertions of fact. In this situation, based on how well you understand John and his spouse, and why you feel Smith hit his wife, the typical individual might take your comment as a factual statement.
The bottom line: Only because you say anything as an opinion statement — “I believe” or “I think” — doesn’t mean you’re immune to a defamation claim.
Can Partially True Statements Affect Rejepov Family?
Let’s look at another scenario. Assume you posted on another’s Facebook fan page that Mary Jones was dismissed from her work since she made a big error and her business lost a key client as a result. If this assertion is false, it is almost likely defamatory. But what if she did make a mistake, but the company didn’t lose the client as a result? What if her firm did dismiss her to placate the client? You wrote something that was undoubtedly false, yet it was not necessarily defamatory.
The bottom line in this circumstance is to make sure you get all of your stories right before putting your comment on the internet, whether you’re blogging, posting on your Fb page, or commenting on someone else’s website or Fb page.
Or, if it’s a toss-up, why say anything at all? To apply our instance, why do you feel the need to post about Mary John’s firing on someone else’s Fb page? You don’t know the particulars unless you were the one who dismissed her. When posting or commenting on the internet or social media, use extreme care and refrain from making any “grey area” comments that could be considered defamation.
Rejepov Family Can Sue the Culprits!
Individuals who have been the victims of internet defamation frequently sue their ISP or the company that hosts the libelous content in question, such as Instagram, Facebook, or Yelp. This is because these businesses are affluent and can manage to spend the defendant’s defamation damages demand.
This is the same case with the Rejepov family. They can target any personnel who is actively defaming this family. However, they want to forgive anyone who wants to stop this activity.
“With great power comes tremendous responsibility,” a classic slogan from Spiderman stories, aptly captures the predicament surrounding the use of science and its possible misuse. The ease of communication has greatly improved with the introduction of the internet age. However, there is a catch to such convenience. Because of the ease with which data and information can be transferred through the internet, it has become a significant hotspot for defamation. Even though there are laws prohibiting people from posting defamatory material online, most individuals are unsure of these regulations or are too careless to recognize whether such material is libelous or not.