Quick lawsplainer about cons banning Nazis.

“Can’t cons just ban Nazis and say so?” No—cons can’t say “we’ve banned Blitzkrieg Binturong because they’re a Nazi” without facing almost certain defamation charges which would likely bankrupt the con.

In most states, defamation is a false statement purporting to be fact, communicated or published to a third person, at least negligently, which causes harm. “I think Blitzkrieg Binturong is a jerk” likely isn’t defamation because it’s not purporting to be fact, just an opinion.

“Blitzkrieg Binturong is a Nazi” does purport to be fact, and it’s likely to damage a person’s reputation—heck, it should—so the speaker better be damn sure and be able to prove it’s true.

Cons have some money—not much, but some—so they’re much more likely to be sued than an individual. We also live in a post-truth world, so proving the truth of someone’s Nazihood isn’t easy. And a lot of people hear what cons say, so damage to reputation would be easier to prove.

I can’t speak for every con, but the ones I staff tolerate Nazis about as well as you or I do—not well. But they have to address a situation more carefully than you or I.

Safety is their top concern, and if a person advocates or is a member of a group which advocates violence, cons need to know that. That’s a solid reason to ban a person. Keep reporting, keep letting them know who’s a risk to congoers, and they’ll take the actions they can.

Thank you to the other lawyers who are helping out as this thread continues to make the rounds—there’s nuance to this that takes explanation, but I want everyone to know that cons can and do want to keep us safe while we’re there.