I am not a lawyer, so I looked for one. David Franklin is a lawyer and also a chess player. Here are his comments on the case…
Some key take-aways from the interview:
1. The case against Nakamura is virtually nonexistent. He will easily get himself removed from the case.
2. Most of the allegations against Magnus and chess.com are also weak and will likely get dropped.
4. Hans might be able to win the defamation case but it is an “uphill battle.”
5. To win the defamation case he needs to prove that he never cheated over the board, and that is impossible.
6. #4 and #5 are mutually exclusive (my opinion) and he never explained how both can be true.
7. The case could go to trial, but more likely that it will not. It is more likely to end in dismissal, summary judgment, or settlement.
8. Like many federal cases, it could drag out for years, so don’t expect a quick result.
9. Chess as a sport now has a big problem, because there is usually no way to catch a “smart cheater” who only uses his cheating method for one or two moves in an over the board game.
The only thing Franklin says that I question is his claim that Hans can’t prove financial damage. It has already happened! Chess.com has its own upcoming tournament with $1,000,000 in prize money. Hans was eligible to compete prior to getting banned by chess.com. Franklin’s argument is that Hans can still make money from other online sources. That is true, but does not negate the fact that he could make more, if he were not banned from all prize money on chess.com for his entire future career.
The thing that troubles me most about this interview is the conclusion that you can accuse over the board cheating and have no legal liability, because the burden of proof is on alleged to prove that he never cheated. The bottom line seems to be that Magus is guilty of “defamation by implication”, but Hans has no viable means to prove himself innocent and, therefore, can’t prove that Magnus’ cheating allegation is false, and, that is one of the three things plaintiff is required to show in order to win a defamation case. In other defamation cases not related to chess, it may be possible (or even easy) to prove the allegation false (e.g., Kanye West’s bullshit), but not here.
Now that I understand the legal issues better, I feel more sympathy for Hans. Do you?
There is always tension between different rights, where one right is suspended in favor of a more important right. The right to free speech hurts other individuals all the time, but being unable to speak would be worse. If everyone was held to the bar you were previously thinking Magnus should be held to, there would be an incredible amount of lawsuits flying around. You could create laws that apply unequally depending on how much influence you wield, but that would require some sort of dystopian social structure (like China wants and has partially built) to accurately apply. Further, if that law was created and applied to Magnus, that could also extend to forcing him to play Hans, because the action of resigning speaks for itself. That's even more dystopian.
I only feel a little bad for Hans. All he has to do is deny it and go on his way. Rumors are always circulating about sports players and PED usage, politicians and dirty deals, corporations and backroom monopoly deals, etc. It's a potential price of being famous. The reaction is overblown because of the novelty, compounded by Magnus being involved, but it will eventually die down.
One of two things would blow it up into a bigger deal -
1. Rumors gain more substance, either from real evidence or circumstantial like Hans' board performance dropping. I don't think Hans cheats in board play, and even if he did he won't be able to going forward. Past evidence unlikely to exist, else it would have already been presented.
2. An organization bans Hans based on rumors, rather than the depth of reasons given by chess.com. This also seems unlikely; would require an organization to be idiotic in legal matters, or for them to have proof that Hans cheats, and the latter would have already surfaced.