Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy

Updates on lawsuit

On January 3, 2023, federal district court Judge Audrey G. Fleissig ruled that "the Court will hear this case only on the bases of federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. It will not hear the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction."

This is a significant ruling because the jurisdictional power of federal courts is limited by the U.S. Constitution and is also limited by statutes. The two main federal jurisdictional grounds authorize federal courts to hear and decide (1) controversies involving federal issues and (2) controversies involving citizens of different states. If at least one jurisdictional basis exists, then a court may exercise additional jurisdictional authority to adjudicate related "pendent" or "supplemental" claims under state law. However, if diversity jurisdiction has been ruled out (which it has), and if the federal question claims (based on antitrust law) are at some point eventually dismissed, then the plaintiff's entire case (including the defamation claims) would have to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

It is not clear whether, if the plaintiff's claims are at some point all dismissed, the court would retain jurisdiction over defendants' "anti-SLAPP" allegations, which are based upon state legislation. The anti-SLAPP pleadings allege that the lawsuit should be dismissed because it was brought in bad faith for improper purposes, including an attempt to chill first amendment rights. In a scenario in which the plaintiff's claims are ultimately dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the court might retain limited jurisdictional authority to consider the anti-SLAPP allegations in connection with possibly imposing sanctions on the plaintiff if the court finds the anti-SLAPP allegations well-taken.

An antitrust claim (the central federal question pleaded by Niemann) requires the plaintiff to plead and prove that the defendants entered into an agreement to restrain competition in a specific market. Some legal commentators consider it likely that the court will eventually determine that it lacks federal question jurisdiction over this case. A possible basis for dismissing the federal question claims is that the disinvition of a player from a competitive tournament because of concerns the player has violated the fair play rules is not equivalent to entering an unlawful agreement to restrain economic competition. In other sports contexts, allegations that an athletic conference suspended a team from participating in athletic competitions because of cheating or other rule-breaking have been held not to state a claim under antitust laws.

On March 1, 2023, Hans Niemann's counsel filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, from the order not to allow diversity jurisdiction. On March 6, 2003, the Eighth Circuit entered a judgment dismissing Niemann's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Normally a party may take an appeal only from a so-called "final order" and the judgment of January 3, 2023, was not a "final, appealable order" but was merely an "interlocutory order" not subject to appeal.100.15.136.71 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65592749/niemann-v-carlsen/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc 100.15.136.71 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Salacious rumors

I feel that this article leaves out a major component of the controversy, and something that motivated Niemann to sue.

It was widely speculated on social media and chess blogging sites that Niemann was using an adult entertainment device in his rectum to receive assistance in his games.

Obviously this cannot be proven, but I think the article should at least mention it with a line like "Rumors spread on social media that Niemann had cheated using an adult entertainment device." Xwedodah (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

See previous discussion at Talk:Carlsen–Niemann controversy/Archive 1#Anal beads. Tkbrett (✉) 20:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see this discussion, thanks for helping it was very informative. Xwedodah (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that discussion ended in clear consensus in any particular direction, though it's clear the inclusion was contentious. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit that calmed the waters was described by User:Criticalus on September 30, and one of the more active participants in the discussion, User:The Gnome, mentioned it favorably on October 2. There may have been a few comments after that, but the discussion had rapidly died down. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the tag, User:Bruce leverett. In regards to this particular edit, here is the choice sentence which we were able to find consensus for: "In response to unsubstantiated speculation alleging the involvement of a concealed device during the Sinquefield Cup, he offered to play in a closed environment without electronic connections and said "if they want me to strip fully naked, I will do it," to disprove any allegations of cheating." (There are other smaller edits that allude to this later on, but this is the most important line). Whether that "concealed device" was an earpiece to receive auditory signals, or anal beads to receive tactile signals, is materially insignificant to the ultimate allegation, and indeed it's not necessary. Originally in that aforementioned discussion, I was in favor of including the anal beads theory, but the other editors brought up valid points about BLP, avoiding salacious and defamatory claims without backing evidence (rampant Twitter speculation hardly counts as supporting evidence). Ultimately, per WP:GRAPEVINE I think this is great the way it is in that it includes the relevance of the speculation on the controversy and its development but without making any allegations or furthering any rumors. The specific type of device is alluded to by his quote saying "if they want me to strip fully naked" but to go beyond that and specify the anal rumors puts us on a fine line against BLP policy. Criticalus (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Also just wanted to add this link to a BLP noticeboard discussion on the same topic that led to much the same conclusion. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive342#Carlsen–Niemann_controversy_and_Hans_Niemann Criticalus (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Only federal portion of lawsuit was dismissed

I feel the article makes it sound like the federal court utterly dismissed Hans's claims. But in reality, the court only dismissed the federal law anti-trust claim, and declined to rule on the state law claims of defamation, contract interference, etc. Then the parties settled, without any court ruling on the defamation claims. Even the antitrust claim was dismissed on the, to me, sketchy claim that Hans, as a professional chess player, nevertheless was not a participant in the chess market, and so couldn't claim any damages. That holding was not appealed. 2601:801:1:8CD0:28A4:F032:B806:4FEF (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

New developments: Carlsen fined 10K euros

https://www.fide.com/news/2795 182.191.83.219 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)