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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @VincentFletcher @quantum_boulder and
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
1 reply 1 retweet 28 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @quantum_boulder and
Taking the buffet approach to the facts again there Arthur? Cases settled against your point of view = Poor bullied publication. Racism not proven in a court of law = Calling people a racist is fine and dandy.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @VincentFletcher @arthur_affect and
It wasn't a settled case. I mean, obviously that ruins your argument, but it's a basic fact in that they didn't actually go to court.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
People love to upgrade these things Backing down to avoid a lawsuit at all becomes settling a lawsuit, settling a lawsuit becomes losing a lawsuit, losing a lawsuit becomes getting convicted of a crime
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @evilref and
No, things just are what they are. This wasn't a lost case. It was a publication feeling that their position wasn't defendable and settling.
9 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VincentFletcher @evilref and
The term "settlement" is incorrect and inappropriate if no suit was ever brought, Mr. Legal Expert
1 reply 2 retweets 19 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
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.