When you wrote "If they make statements about people that to a normal person's understanding are not clear parody, they can still be sued" were you primarily ta

When you wrote "If they make statements about people that to a normal person's understanding are not clear parody, they can still be sued" were you primarily talking about the UK system? I see that you write 'defences', instead of the American 'defenses', so I think the answer is "yes." The Slate article was talking about a case in the US system (and the HN readership is US-centric), so I think it's fair to expect that comments which refer to some other jurisdiction would mention that change. I ask that you make this context shift more explicit in the future. Here's a more complete analysis of what a First Amendment defense might look in the US system in regards to Tom Cruise being called gay: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20051206.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20051206.html . One of the more philosophical points in that essay applies to British law. The Defamation Act 2013 requires serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. Do you, as a lawyer, wish to defend the belief that it's harmful to call someone gay when they are not gay? Reading about that new(ish) law, it seems the updated line should be "I'll sue you in Belfast."