You don’t ‘show’ where defamation occurs on Twitter, mate. You test it in court. Or you apologise before it reaches court because you’re advised you’ll lose. I hope that helps.
-
-
Replying to @MFnP @supersarr and
Defamation is an intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation. There are laws that impose penalties on defamatory statements. Holy shit, your vocabulary is so bad for someone who frequently criticisms other people's reading skills.
3 replies 0 retweets 24 likes -
Eg Chu saying JKR is attacking anyone who threatens her access to children?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paul_smortions @MFnP and
She's provably doing that. In at least two instances she's used her lawyers to threaten financial ruin on her critics, when said critics either disparaged her with regard to children, or informed children of her stated views.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
What a joke. She's issued warnings to people who have very obviously libelled her. Two people, as far as I'm aware. Critics is a bizarre and partisan choice of words.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paul_smortions @MFnP and
Show me the libelous statements. I've been asking for them from you jokers for a full day now, and nobody's been able to actually provide them. It's like the statements weren't actually libelous, and were fully opinion, and you know you can't defend JKR against reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paul_smortions @MFnP and
That's an opinion. I have the same opinion: I wouldn't trust JKR around my children, and if she wants to try and sue me for it she can see me in US court.
1 reply 2 retweets 19 likes -
JKR apparently felt it met the standards for libel. Spurling's lawyers apparently agreed. But Sam the web developer believes he knows better. In my judgement, you don't really care about vexatious litigation. You just want people to have free rein to attack a woman you dislike.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @paul_smortions @Azuaron and
And then Spurling talked to her lawyers again and they said if she makes it clear *why* she doesn't think JKR can be trusted around children she's not guilty of libel - the "honest opinion" exemption in the 2013 Defamation Act
2 replies 1 retweet 16 likes
Who knows if that's objectively a good call in a system that rewards billionaires But in terms of the legal principles on paper this seems obviously true If this kind of thing doesn't fall under the honest opinion exemption then for all practical purposes there is no exemption
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Azuaron and
You're arguing about a correction, I'm talking about the original.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.