• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
JK Rowling has a very simple message for you, but you choose to react like a litigant in a long running case.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I have no fear of being sued by Rowling, as I'm not a resident of TERF island.

In the US, ascribing someone as a bigot based on publicly available information is considered an opinion and protected 1A speech. Calling Rowling a TERF is not something that you really need worry about being sued about in the US.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Fortunately I have no fear of being sued by Rowling, as I'm not a resident of TERF island.

In the US, ascribing someone as a bigot based on publicly available information is considered an opinion and protected 1A speech. Calling Rowling a TERF is not something that you really need worry about being sued about in the US.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Keep lying about Rowling with impunity. It’s your right, of course.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Rowling is especially notorious among British TERFs in aggressively using the UK's very censorious libel laws to silence critics (can only wonder why the "cancel culture" warriors haven't objected).
Click to expand...

Got a list of the libel suits Rowling has filed?

I only recall one case (not that long ago) where someone on Twitter serially lied and misrepresented her views, resulting in a solicitor's letter and a rapid apology.

US defamation law has a higher standard, actual malice, for public figures, versus mere negligence for private individuals. The tweets in question would have approached actual malice standards not least by being repeated even after it was pointed out that they were lies.

So in this case, 'censorious' means being unable to lie and make up fantasies.

The converse use of hate speech law and non-crime hate incident recording has resulted in a great deal of vexatious litigation in the UK, because it's so routinely abused against gender-criticals.
 
It's not just Rowling that was being demonized in that image, the man depicted to her right looks like an old stereotypical image of Asians.
 
Nick Terry said:
Got a list of the libel suits Rowling has filed?

I only recall one case (not that long ago) where someone on Twitter serially lied and misrepresented her views, resulting in a solicitor's letter and a rapid apology.

US defamation law has a higher standard, actual malice, for public figures, versus mere negligence for private individuals. The tweets in question would have approached actual malice standards not least by being repeated even after it was pointed out that they were lies.

So in this case, 'censorious' means being unable to lie and make up fantasies.

The converse use of hate speech law and non-crime hate incident recording has resulted in a great deal of vexatious litigation in the UK, because it's so routinely abused against gender-criticals.
Click to expand...

As far as I recall, she's mostly only had to resort to threatening to sue people. The heavily plantiff friendly nature of UK's libel laws make even such a threat quite a chilling action.

let's not play dumb, the disparity of resources at play should be very familiar. JK Rowling can afford to lose such a case, meanwhile the average Joe cant even afford to properly defend themselves.

Steven Novella wrote about this regarding how uniquely awful the UK is for this:

After Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for libel, he used the opportunity to rally for libel reform in the UK. Simon won his suit, but defending his free speech was tremendously expensive. Fortunately for him, he had the resources to go the distance. Libel laws in England are especially bad, favoring the plaintiff and are ridiculously expensive – so much so that they motivate “libel tourism” in which someone sues someone else specifically in England for maximal effect.
Click to expand...

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/libel-reform-in-the-us/
 
Manger Douse said:
You made this up to get angry about
Click to expand...

Actor J.J. Welles posted on Twitter that Rowling “absolutely has views that align with Nazis.” Welles then wrote that “I think relying on tropes and stereotypes is VERY 1930s propaganda.” Like both modern and historical Nazis, Rowling has repeatedly trotted out extremist rhetoric to demonize trans people—for instance, calling them “violent, duplicitous rapists” and writing a novel that depicts a trans woman as a murderer. Rowling has also made use of antisemitic stereotypes in her work, including the goblin bankers in the Harry Potter franchise.

Rowling responded to Welles’s tweet with, “Okey dokey, JJ, we’ll play it your way. Give my regards to your solicitor!”

Soon after, Welles deleted his tweets and replaced them with an apology. Twitter users were quickly able to assume that Rowling had threatened Welles with legal action, forcing him to take down his original statement and replace it with the apology.
Click to expand...

https://www.themarysue.com/j-k-rowling-appears-to-sic-lawyers-on-queer-critic/

Regardless of if you agree with the assessment that Rowling's views put her into alignment with Nazis, this would be unambiguously considered an opinion in the US, and in states with SLAPP laws any frivolous defamation litigation based on this would result in Rowling paying all the legal fees associated with the defense.
 
Last edited:
In a truly free society, we can smear people as Nazis and not worry about any consequences. :p
 
Last edited:
Manger Douse said:
You've made this up to get angry about.
Click to expand...

A second occasion in which Rowling has resulted in legal threats to silence her critics on Twitter.

Later on in the day, Spurling deleted the original tweet, writing instead, “At the request of @jk_rowling and on the advice of my lawyers, I have deleted my original tweet. The tweet, when read on its own, lacked clarity and, right or wrong, wealth is powerful.”

She followed up with a reply, adding, “With that said, I stand behind the intent of the tweet, which is to highlight the dangerous nature of transphobia. Children are particularly vulnerable and must be accepted for who they are, not told that who they are is wrong. With great power comes great responsibility.”
Click to expand...

https://www.tricitynews.com/local-news/jk-rowling-threatens-legal-action-against-coquitlam-transgender-activist-over-tweets-3123135
 
d4m10n said:
In a truly free society, we can smear people as Nazis and not worry about any consequences. [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that describing someone's views as being aligned with Nazis is an opinion? Maybe I should be posting this in the cancel culture thread, isn't this something you're quite concerned about?

Describing someone as a bigot is certainly a serious insult, but it's one ultimately and obviously rooted in opinion.

People are pointing at the body of Rowling's public statements and are calling her a bigot, that's opinion based on disclosed facts. At least in US law, that's not defamatory.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
A second occasion in which Rowling has resulted in legal threats to silence her critics on Twitter.



https://www.tricitynews.com/local-news/jk-rowling-threatens-legal-action-against-coquitlam-transgender-activist-over-tweets-3123135
Click to expand...

The quote JKR was upset about: "“Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.”

Truly a chilling assault on free speech not being able to call famous people child abusers

Pro-tip: When you're making stuff up just to get angry about, just stop
 
Elaedith said:
It's not 'just an opinion' when it's based on demonstrably false accusations, as in this case.
Click to expand...

It's entirely an opinion to point to Rowling's many public statements on the issue and describe them as bigoted or Nazi-aligned.

You may disagree with the reasoning, or even think there's some very bad-faith interpretation at work, but opinion based on disclosed facts is never defamation (at least in the US, which cares about free speech more than TERF island)
 
Manger Douse said:
The quote JKR was upset about: "“Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.”

Truly a chilling assault on free speech not being able to call famous people child abusers

Pro-tip: When you're making stuff up just to get angry about, just stop
Click to expand...

Interesting to see such support for regressive libel laws on a supposed skeptics forum. In fact, I don't really believe it, you're just happy it's working out for your preferred censor in this particular example.
 
Last edited:
Manger Douse said:
The quote JKR was upset about: "“Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.”

Truly a chilling assault on free speech not being able to call famous people child abusers

Pro-tip: When you're making stuff up just to get angry about, just stop
Click to expand...

Yeah, that defamation suit would be laughed out of court in the USA.
 
Manger Douse said:
The quote JKR was upset about: "“Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.”

Truly a chilling assault on free speech not being able to call famous people child abusers

Pro-tip: When you're making stuff up just to get angry about, just stop
Click to expand...

Um, I'm not sure which is worse, trying to censor slander or falsely accusing people of being child molesters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom