4 ms·

Since it looks like so many of the claims about Scruton were simply fabricated, why haven't there been any consequences for Eaton? Heck, why doesn't Scruton sue

Since it looks like so many of the claims about Scruton were simply fabricated, why haven't there been any consequences for Eaton? Heck, why doesn't Scruton sue in UK courts, given that Eaton has clearly admitted that his conduct was malicious in getting Scruton sacked. This would be regarded as libel even in the U.S., where First Amendment protections on the matter are quite strong.

barrkel 7y ago
The claims about Scruton were truncated quotes and dredging up historical statements. I don't think they significantly misrepresent his views; rather, they leave out the subtlety that lets a certain kind of racist think they have intellectually defensible views. There's a deeply nasty seam in Tory politics like this. Witness Zac Goldsmith's attacks on Khan during the London mayor election - it was racist baiting, and the chap has still gotten re-elected after a brief period out in the cold. Or Boris always going on about letter boxes and bank robbers. It's odious, but it's usually done in a way that can be superficially waved off by psychologically ignored qualifications.
turc1656 7y ago
In the U.S., it's nearly impossible for public figures to sue for things like slander, defamation, and libel. "Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would not have to prove that a reporter was aware that a particular statement about the official was false in order to recover from the reporter. This could have the effect of deterring members of the press from commenting on the activities of a public official. Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity." The only hope here is proving 1) that they statements are in fact false and 2) that they were made recklessly and with "actual malice" (the legal standard). Proving they are false is damn hard since Eaton basically paraphrased and summarized his own opinion on the statements by claiming they were anti-semitic, racist, etc. How would they prove Eaton's opinion was false or at least wasn't what he claimed to believe? Also, proving actual malice will also be near impossible. EDIT - forgot source link - https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-and-public-figures/ https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-a...

barrkel 7y ago

The claims about Scruton were truncated quotes and dredging up historical statements. I don't think they significantly misrepresent his views; rather, they leave out the subtlety that lets a certain kind of racist think they have intellectually defensible views. There's a deeply nasty seam in Tory politics like this. Witness Zac Goldsmith's attacks on Khan during the London mayor election - it was racist baiting, and the chap has still gotten re-elected after a brief period out in the cold. Or Boris always going on about letter boxes and bank robbers. It's odious, but it's usually done in a way that can be superficially waved off by psychologically ignored qualifications.

turc1656 7y ago

In the U.S., it's nearly impossible for public figures to sue for things like slander, defamation, and libel. "Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would not have to prove that a reporter was aware that a particular statement about the official was false in order to recover from the reporter. This could have the effect of deterring members of the press from commenting on the activities of a public official. Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity." The only hope here is proving 1) that they statements are in fact false and 2) that they were made recklessly and with "actual malice" (the legal standard). Proving they are false is damn hard since Eaton basically paraphrased and summarized his own opinion on the statements by claiming they were anti-semitic, racist, etc. How would they prove Eaton's opinion was false or at least wasn't what he claimed to believe? Also, proving actual malice will also be near impossible. EDIT - forgot source link - https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-and-public-figures/ https://libelandslander.uslegal.com/fault/public-officials-a...