"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
-
-
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
2 replies 2 retweets 33 likes -
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
The idea that this is what defamation law is for -- fighting "incorrect interpretations" of YOUR WORDS, like me pointing to something I think is transphobic and saying "That's transphobic" is manipulative deception -- is deeply fucked The UK is fucked
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @MFnP and
Libel and slander laws are supposed to be about stopping people from lying about factual knowledge they claim to possess but do not "I saw his bank account and he's been stealing from the company", "I dated her and I saw her eat a kitten"
3 replies 2 retweets 20 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.