So basically he discerned between two cases: 1. Having absolute truth and being able to provide evidence that is accepted by people from this world 2. Having no absolute truth He also said that noone should fear to say his opinion if he only speaks his opinion and makes that clear. But there is a third case that he didn't state and this is what makes cases of world champions of all kinds of things so interesting: A lot of world champions have entities talking to them, and becouse of these entities, they are in the position they are in. These entities can either be demons, angels or God. These entities can also give champions powers to do whatever they do, and can not be detected with science, this is what makes it so interesting, becouse they speak to them in a realm that can not be detected with science. Now, the issue here is, that in the third case, these people know something that goes beyond their personal opionion, and it's also something that a lot of them could not have known by their own human power alone, and by stating in a public statement, that it is just their "personal opinion" in a lot of cases are simply lies, and they are directly insulting these entities that aid them, which can be fatal to them depending on their relationship with these entities. Also, stating that it is only your "personal opinion" in a lot of peoples eyes takes away from the strength of a point of argument. In earlier times, it was known to be normal for people, especially very successful people to have relationships with entities. Why do people not talk about this anymore? Did 1. The entities change ?, or 2. The society change Society changed. Becouse talking about having a relationship to an entity in some cases gets people targeted dangerously by social systems, for example by psychiatrists which take away their freedom and not only damage their image, but also try to take away their public credibility. The psychology of today is the peak of stupidity, becouse it tries to make it impossible for people to talk about relationships with entities that are more powerful than humans. By that psychology is directly destroying its own growth, becouse psychology makes it impossible for itself to understand the human spirit. Governments and courts have a lot more to do with conciousness and philosophy than with psychology (psychology is a charlatan part of science), that is why it is more interesting. It's closer to the essence of all things than science is. In the third case, all actions taken by Magnus are perfectly understandable. I know things that a lot of other people don't.

Pretty sure as long as the court is willing to receive the case, Magnus would still be liable to take part. The actual verdicts would be a lot more complicated since defamation cases have low success rates.

I should have worn something skimpy!

Let's charge an ex-con for a crime he didn't commit simply cause he is an ex-con! Is that what you are saying? Are you hearing yourself?!

@@jean-baptistegrenouille3692 would u let a confirmed child predator babysit your children? Allot of Criminals do crimes even after Prison Wake up I'm assuming you're a cheater seeing u defending one ?

@@jean-baptistegrenouille3692 can you read a text? if you cheated in the past, there is nothing wrong if I call you a cheater. This does not mean you cheated again, but you are still a cheater.

@@jean-baptistegrenouille3692 specially if the convict committed crime when he was 12 and 16

@@swarnavabanerjee4112 Problem is, he admitted cheating "Online" and also stated he never cheated over the board.

Carlsen's citizenship is irrelevant.

@@jonlynch isn't citizenship what's use to determine what penal code is applicable

In general truth is always a defense in slander cases. That is in the US, in the UK, and EU countries. That is why Magnus should be able to say, "I fear that perhaps there was cheating. What made me believe that is ... I can't say that there was cheating, I can only say that I feared there was, and that was why I quit/resigned, etc." You can tell the truth of your opinion. That is free speech.

@@FunSmiths Oh ok :) and another question, if there's an investigation and his opinion uses information used by the investigation could that info be dismiss as magnus opinion

@@seymur7422 In most countries, their penal code abides by the "territoriality principle" which means that the crime must be committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that country as a general rule. Extraterritoriality is an exception such as in instances when a crime is committed on a ship or airplane registered with a country seeking to enforce their penal laws. Another exception is when an element of a crime is present in the territorial jurisdiction of a country seeking to enforce their penal laws. There are other exceptions but the last one seems to be applicable in this scenario and that is why Carlsen is probably keeping his mouth shut until he could give a definitive statement without getting sued. The rationale is that, while Carlsen is Norwegian, if he makes a defamatory statement against Hans, then the element of "damage" is present wherever Hans may be. Hence, US laws may be applicable to Carlsen. As a caveat, I'm viewing this from the lens of international law principles and I am in no way an expert on US laws for that matter because they may differ from my country's laws in some form or capacity but my country is heavily influenced by US laws so I just wanted to shed some light and aid you in some manner. Moreover, Carlsen's citizenship may still have an effect on the situation if he does make a defamatory statement because conflict of law principles may come into play.

lol no, it just means you can't be sued for an opinion.