Though interestingly, he jumped on the word "racist" but not the war criminal bit of the sentence.
-
-
Yes because no one accused JK Rowling of that so that part just makes you come off as a histrionic fool
4 replies 1 retweet 77 likes -
I'm histrionic. Says the gentleman screaming at me that I'm a 'fucking dipshit,' a 'fucking turd' and every other playground insult he can dredge up. Stay classy you self-described genius.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
These are all, as Bryan helpfully reminded us, examples of insults that are matters of opinion and therefore cannot be legally actionable in a defamation suit, as opposed to his bizarre example of accusing someone of murdering civilians during wartime
3 replies 1 retweet 54 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @VincentFletcher and
To be fair, I wouldn't say that calling someone racist or transphobic falls within the same purview as, say, calling them an idiot. It's an insult, but it's one which clearly implies a sufficiently specific factual assertion as to have a meaningful truth value.
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @quantum_boulder @arthur_affect and
That said, that vagueness ought to mean it's only actionable if the claim being made is clearly incorrect, which is not the case here. No reasonable person would say "JKR is so obviously not a transphobe that no good faith interpretation of her actions would suggest she is one".
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @quantum_boulder @arthur_affect and
Perhaps not, but if you are grouped in with proven bigots in a published article in a lazy 'as with Picasso, Dali etc...' manner, it's a pretty clear attack.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VincentFletcher @arthur_affect and
I'm not arguing that it's not an attack, though -- I'm arguing that any reasonable person would at the barest minimum concede that it's a reasonable thing to believe and confidently assert, and should thus not be libellous on that basis alone.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @quantum_boulder @VincentFletcher and
It's not libellous period Saying that JK Rowling is in some implied sense in the same category as Picasso and Wagner is not in any sense actionable It does not make any reference to specific facts that could be found objectively true or false It is an assessment of character
2 replies 2 retweets 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @quantum_boulder and
Then why does the owner of the publication (and let us not forget, ex-editor of revolting right wing Tory rag) The Daily Express disagree with you?pic.twitter.com/R1cZpAc7vC
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Because he doesn't want to go to court so he's saying whatever JK Rowling's lawyers told him to say you feckless dunce
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.