4 ms·

Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Say our product sucks? Defamation. Claim you were sexually assault

Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Say our product sucks? Defamation. Claim you were sexually assaulted? Defamation. Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit?

NoboruWataya 5y ago
I'm not sure that's true - or rather, I think it's exaggerated. First, truth is generally a defence to defamation, and costs follow the cause in the UK so a losing party would generally be required to pay both parties' costs. Now, defamation suits can still be costly and painful even if you are in the right, so they do surely have some chilling effect. But the risk and likely cost of trying to silence legitimate criticisms with frivolous defamation lawsuits is quite high. Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy headlines. If you really want to silence your critics, dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to do it.
- mcguire 5y ago
  That has partially changed in the last 10 years. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
45ure 5y ago
>Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC programme Who's The Boss. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their raison d'être. The strategy works, as it is doing them no harm and the growth is phenomenal. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-punk-brewery-beer-scottish-brewer-controversy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-pun... https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regrets-disaster-tv-appearance/ https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regre... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685
- shkkmo 5y ago
  This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is responging to... You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.
  - 45ure 5y ago
    >You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? There is no such implication on both counts. I am flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I was not drawing want conclusions. I was struggling to understand your comment and those were the only three plausible (and mutually exclusive) interpretations i could come up with. I presume you had a point you were trying to make, but i could not figure out what it was from your comment as written.
      - drdeca 5y ago
        I suspect the option of the three options you listed which wasn’t one of the two they rejected as flabbergasting, was the right one. I.e. they were suggesting that brewdog, uh, deliberately invites criticism, and then uses that criticism to their advantage by using defamation law.
Steko 5y ago
So the guy who had six figures lying around to pay off a twitter lawsuit doesn't have money?
coldtea 5y ago
>Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit? Court and lawyer support should be free or cheap. Else you have a bigger problem than "defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences": all kinds of lawsuits being "a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences". In an ideal society, a huge corporation and an average Joe should have the same legal representation, quality wise. Of course this means destroying our present norms of elite law firms and bad free counselling assigned by court. Have lawyers on pool as a state service and assign them randomly to cases on either side.

NoboruWataya 5y ago

I'm not sure that's true - or rather, I think it's exaggerated. First, truth is generally a defence to defamation, and costs follow the cause in the UK so a losing party would generally be required to pay both parties' costs. Now, defamation suits can still be costly and painful even if you are in the right, so they do surely have some chilling effect. But the risk and likely cost of trying to silence legitimate criticisms with frivolous defamation lawsuits is quite high. Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy headlines. If you really want to silence your critics, dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to do it.

mcguire 5y ago
That has partially changed in the last 10 years. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...

45ure 5y ago

>Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC programme Who's The Boss. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their raison d'être. The strategy works, as it is doing them no harm and the growth is phenomenal. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-punk-brewery-beer-scottish-brewer-controversy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-pun... https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regrets-disaster-tv-appearance/ https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regre... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685

shkkmo 5y ago
This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is responging to... You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.
- 45ure 5y ago
  >You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? There is no such implication on both counts. I am flabbergasted by how you have arrived at your conclusion.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I was not drawing want conclusions. I was struggling to understand your comment and those were the only three plausible (and mutually exclusive) interpretations i could come up with. I presume you had a point you were trying to make, but i could not figure out what it was from your comment as written.
    - drdeca 5y ago
      I suspect the option of the three options you listed which wasn’t one of the two they rejected as flabbergasting, was the right one. I.e. they were suggesting that brewdog, uh, deliberately invites criticism, and then uses that criticism to their advantage by using defamation law.

Steko 5y ago

So the guy who had six figures lying around to pay off a twitter lawsuit doesn't have money?

coldtea 5y ago

>Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit? Court and lawyer support should be free or cheap. Else you have a bigger problem than "defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences": all kinds of lawsuits being "a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences". In an ideal society, a huge corporation and an average Joe should have the same legal representation, quality wise. Of course this means destroying our present norms of elite law firms and bad free counselling assigned by court. Have lawyers on pool as a state service and assign them randomly to cases on either side.