Which is why I said the relevance of murder to defamation is tenuous at best. Philosophically it’s interesting but that’s about it. Practically the conflation of criminal law with civil law isn’t that illuminating.
-
-
Uh, no, in both cases either something actually happened or it didn't, both things are statements about the real world All court judgments, ideally, should be statements about the real world and things that actually happened, it doesn't matter whether it's civil or criminal
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
"Ideally", of course, being the key term As someone who rejects fluffy idealism I'm sure you're just fine with the idea that the lower burden of proof in civil trials means Ms. Rowling should be able to extract apologies from anyone who pisses her off because judges like her
1 reply 2 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
I mean yeah in one sense talking shit about JKR as this act of rebellion is pointless because I live in the US and I'm covered by the First Amendment and the 2010 SPEECH Act so it proves nothing legally that she doesn't try to sue me
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
But as an idealist to some degree it offends the fuck out of me that her shitty fans get to point to her critics' coerced abjection and apologies as *evidence she was actually morally in the right* It's viscerally offensive as fuck to watch them say that
1 reply 6 retweets 49 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
So, yes, watching them impotently sputter "Sue this man! Sue that lady! Sue everyone!" and it just not happening when people call her out on Twitter matters In a very small way, it matters It's the principle of the thing
2 replies 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
The thing I find particular funny about MissFluffy is that she clearly doesn't believe in anything. Look how many times the story has changed, and how many arguments she's had to eject from because even she knows that everything she says is BS. Yet, she just keeps trying anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Azuaron @arthur_affect and
Such as? I mean we have a basic disagreement about whether it is possible to identify ‘defamatory statements’, rather than suggest a court may find a statement defamatory. But that’s about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MFnP @arthur_affect and
JKR, a transphobic bigot, immorally filed SLAPP lawsuits against people who did not defame her. You've bailed from every single angle you've tried to argue against that statement.
2 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @Azuaron @arthur_affect and
I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t think she’s a transphobic bigot. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest she’s particularly litigious. If she never sued the argument would be ‘well, there’s no smoke without fire’. I think most people, if they are honest, know that.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
There's no smoke without fire either way Intimidating people into backing down via SLAPP is not proof of anything and it's disgustingly obvious motivated reasoning to act like it is
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
This is all happening in public, we can all see the tweets and the essays If you don't want people to think you're a TERF and a bigot the only way to actually change that is to stop saying the things they judge as TERFy and bigoted
8 replies 3 retweets 47 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Azuaron and
The same applies to ‘if you don’t want people to think your a misogynist with zero concern for women’s rights or their right to define their own boundaries’. Yet here we are.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 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.