JKR felt she had the money to hire lawyers for however long it was necessary, and Spurling knew even winning the lawsuit would be financially devastating. I have lawyers on retainer, and the US's defamation laws include anti-SLAPP provisions.
-
-
It's pretty obvious that saying someone is a danger to children is grounds for a libel action. You don't care about that though.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paul_smortions @MFnP and
Look it up, Einstein. Opinions are not defamation under the law (either US or UK).
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
"Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children". I was 20 years a journalist. I know, without question, that statement is over the line. It's not presented as an opinion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @paul_smortions @Azuaron and
The difference between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion does not in any sense rely on "magic words" like using the phrase "in my opinion" People who think there's any semantic difference between "You're evil" and "In my opinion you're evil" are incredibly tedious
3 replies 4 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @paul_smortions and
The honest opinion exemption in the Defamation Act seems pretty clear to me As long as the facts referred to by the opinion are true, the opinion isn't defamatory, regardless of whether you think the chain of logic from the facts to the opinion is reasonable or has merit
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @paul_smortions and
"JK Rowling is in favor of medical gatekeeping I believe this harms children Therefore, I believe JK Rowling is harmful to children" As long as the first sentence is true, this can't be defamation, even if you think my beliefs are terrible and wrong
2 replies 5 retweets 43 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @paul_smortions and
Just like "Arthur is Asian, I believe all Asians are communists, therefore I believe Arthur is a communist" It's shitty and racist and the person should be publicly shamed for it, but it doesn't fit the definition of libel
2 replies 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Azuaron and
And did Spurling qualify her statement? No.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paul_smortions @Azuaron and
Okay, so Spurling has put up new, revised tweets that make it clear exactly why she thinks JKR is a danger to children Everyone should be happy now right
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes
If you actually think JKR's original threat was in good faith then you actually believe JKR really thought Spurling meant "I have secret knowledge that JKR is a child molester" I highly doubt you actually believe that, just as I doubt you really are fine with the new tweets
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Azuaron and
Of course I don't think that. Don't strawman me. One of the tests for libel is that it's untrue, which JKR clearly felt it was. The initial tweet was obviously libelous, and you and others are denying that. I don't think the later tweets are fair, but that's not relevant.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paul_smortions @Azuaron and
It doesn't fall into the realm of something that can be proven true or false in court because it's a personal value judgment
1 reply 1 retweet 8 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.