"It wasn't presented as a specific accusation of a specific crime. It was a general insult."

"He didn't single any specific person out and charge them with a specific, literal, actual, legal crime."

Exactly! But unfortunately our friend @baah has not yet learned the difference.

Let's say for example, as many have claimed, that Walmart is a very corrupt organization which exploits its workers by keeping wages low and limiting their hours, so that they (Walmart) can avoid having to pay any benefits. While that statement itself may or may not have any basis in fact, it does not in any way suggest that a specific employee, manager, director or shareholder of the company is directly or personally responsible for the exploitation of the company's employees, even if such exploitation is true.

As another example, a few years ago as I recall, someone bought some kind of a media device from Walmart for their kid, and upon inspecting it, found it to contain pornographic material. Therefore it would be quite accurate for anyone to state that Walmart was very irresponsible in allowing an obviously returned device to be sold to another customer without first checking it more thoroughly. Such a statement however does not in any way, shape or form suggest that a specific employee, manager, director, or shareholder of Walmart was to blame for this unfortunate incident.

Likewise, making the statement that Steemit is infested with pornography and other such trash is a non-disputable fact. But like the Walmart examples above, that statement does not in any way, shape or form suggest that a specific employee, manager, director, or shareholder of Steemit is to blame for what is going on at Steemit.

Now @baah and @themarkymark may very well disagree with this analysis, but regardless, I think they will find that any lawyer, or any other reasonably educated person, will totally agree with me on this one.