30 ms·

This doesn’t seem like it has anything to do with free speech, you can’t slander someone, it seems Murray attempted to slander Riley, she claims he succeeded in

by vxNsr 5y ago

This doesn’t seem like it has anything to do with free speech, you can’t slander someone, it seems Murray attempted to slander Riley, she claims he succeeded in some regards.

atdrummond 5y ago
Given the amount of people who venue shop such cases in the UK, I would buy an argument that speech has been curtailed due to how much easier it is to win such judgements there - even when it is often unclear how the party claiming harm was actually damaged.
pessimizer 5y ago
I disagree. Riley's tweet was clear and expressed her views accurately and sincerely, and Murray's tweet was sincere and a reasonable interpretation of Riley's tweet, which it directly referenced. Riley wasn't slandering Corbyn by cheekily calling him a Nazi - although part of her defense was explaining how Corbyn is actually an antisemite (which would be irrelevant or even counterproductive in a case accusing Murray of maliciously lying.) It's her honest belief. Murray honestly believes that Riley is stupid, and that Riley was showing her agreement with a physical attack on Corbyn. This can be a questionable interpretation if you realize that Riley probably hates Owen Jones, too, but it's certainly reasonable. Besides that, everyone had access to the Riley tweet, and could decide for themselves. It's an unbelievably low standard for liability. ----- > There are three major defenses against a defamation suit. The first is “privilege,” which typically protects journalists when they quote otherwise defamatory statements made by officials in parliament or the courts to allow for full reporting of issues of public interest. The second is “truth,” which protects the person being sued if they can show that what they said was true. And the third is “honest opinion,” which applies if an opinion was expressed and that opinion was held reasonably and expressed honestly rather than out of malice or to harm someone’s reputation. > Murray’s lawyers believed they could defend their client using not just one but two of the defenses: truth and honest opinion. Was Murray not justified in inferring that Riley was equating Corbyn to a Nazi when she implied that the two cases were similar, especially in the context of Riley’s earlier statements? Was Riley’s comment not agreeing with Jones’s approval of a previous attack and suggesting it was deserved this time too? And was Murray’s view not expressed honestly and with the intention chiefly to defend Corbyn’s reputation rather than harm Riley’s? (Calling someone “stupid” in a heated exchange on Twitter is not usually considered defamatory, otherwise we’d have many tens of thousands of people facing enormous fines.) https://www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-ruling-judicial-attack-political-speech/279419/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 5y ago
Isn't Riley attempting to slander Corbyn by implying he is a Nazi? The saddest part about this is that Riley decided she should take someone responding to her tweet to court.

by vxNsr 5y ago

This doesn’t seem like it has anything to do with free speech, you can’t slander someone, it seems Murray attempted to slander Riley, she claims he succeeded in some regards.

atdrummond 5y ago

Given the amount of people who venue shop such cases in the UK, I would buy an argument that speech has been curtailed due to how much easier it is to win such judgements there - even when it is often unclear how the party claiming harm was actually damaged.

pessimizer 5y ago

I disagree. Riley's tweet was clear and expressed her views accurately and sincerely, and Murray's tweet was sincere and a reasonable interpretation of Riley's tweet, which it directly referenced. Riley wasn't slandering Corbyn by cheekily calling him a Nazi - although part of her defense was explaining how Corbyn is actually an antisemite (which would be irrelevant or even counterproductive in a case accusing Murray of maliciously lying.) It's her honest belief. Murray honestly believes that Riley is stupid, and that Riley was showing her agreement with a physical attack on Corbyn. This can be a questionable interpretation if you realize that Riley probably hates Owen Jones, too, but it's certainly reasonable. Besides that, everyone had access to the Riley tweet, and could decide for themselves. It's an unbelievably low standard for liability. ----- > There are three major defenses against a defamation suit. The first is “privilege,” which typically protects journalists when they quote otherwise defamatory statements made by officials in parliament or the courts to allow for full reporting of issues of public interest. The second is “truth,” which protects the person being sued if they can show that what they said was true. And the third is “honest opinion,” which applies if an opinion was expressed and that opinion was held reasonably and expressed honestly rather than out of malice or to harm someone’s reputation. > Murray’s lawyers believed they could defend their client using not just one but two of the defenses: truth and honest opinion. Was Murray not justified in inferring that Riley was equating Corbyn to a Nazi when she implied that the two cases were similar, especially in the context of Riley’s earlier statements? Was Riley’s comment not agreeing with Jones’s approval of a previous attack and suggesting it was deserved this time too? And was Murray’s view not expressed honestly and with the intention chiefly to defend Corbyn’s reputation rather than harm Riley’s? (Calling someone “stupid” in a heated exchange on Twitter is not usually considered defamatory, otherwise we’d have many tens of thousands of people facing enormous fines.) https://www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-ruling-judicial-attack-political-speech/279419/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/rachel-riley-libel-defamation-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

oh_sigh 5y ago

Isn't Riley attempting to slander Corbyn by implying he is a Nazi? The saddest part about this is that Riley decided she should take someone responding to her tweet to court.