9 ms·
Jon Pretty wins in court against sexual harassment claims by Scala community
- spullara 2y agoTurns out due process was invented for a reason.
- ceejayoz 2y agoBritish defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright.
- mjburgess 2y agoWell in the case of defamation the damage has already been done, necessarily. So the defendant is really a prosector, and they are asked for their evidence. See, eg., this case. Also,... > The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Also,... > The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law Getting this ruling on one of the most heavily documented historical facts in existence cost millions and two years of litigation. That has an obvious chilling effects to alleging misconduct that isn't documented in a few thousand scholarly books.
- afavour 2y agoAgreed. I know absolutely nothing about this particular case so I'm not passing judgement on it specifically. But as a British person I've learned over the years (and the endless court cases by football players etc) to pretty much totally disregard the outcome of these kind of cases.
- jsheard 2y agoIt's a big part of why Jimmy Savile got away with it despite everyone apparently knowing what he was up to, nobody wanted to run the story because they anticipated it would get shot down as libel. The BBC greenlit an investigation into the allegations immediately after he died, they knew full well there was dirt there but they wouldn't touch it until he was in the ground.
- kayodelycaon 2y agoI think they have sufficient evidence to win the suit in the US. From the court: The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant.
- rafram 2y agoMost likely not. There are two parts of US case law that would be at issue here, but the key is actual malice [1]. The defendants here believed the claims they were repeating, even if they themselves hadn't seen the evidence. That isn't defamation. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating-a-defamatory-all/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating...
- f33d5173 2y ago"actual malice" means either they knew it was untrue or they published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That would be the test he would attempt to prove they failed.
- mminer237 2y agoActual malice (which, reckless disregard isn't all that hard to get) it's only required if a person is a public figure. For most people, you only have to show negligence.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rm_-rf_slash 2y agoCounterpoint: when the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, people can lie about terrible things with little to no consequence. I personally have been at the receiving end of some particularly heinous lies by an individual who is unfortunately not getting the mental assistance they need. It was hard enough to secure a restraining order but my lawyer said there was pretty much nothing I could do about the whoppers being blasted over social media. Fortunately nobody believed the crazy person’s crazy lies but if they had I could have been put in a really bad situation.
- nailer 2y ago> > British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. > English defamation law... does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. That's not 'notoriously friendly to plaintiffs'. It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism The UK's system required a historian to spend two years and millions defending against a libel claim from calling someone a prominent Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd That's to argue one of the most clearly documented historical facts we have. Allegations - testimony - are evidence. Multiple people alledging something is evidence. Even under US libel law, accusing someone like Cosby or Weinstein of misconduct is risky enough; in the UK, it led to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile being untouchable.
- nailer 2y agoNothing you have written refutes the item you have quoted. Someone was able to prove that David Irving said the holocaust did not happen, but it did happen, and David Irving lost. Good. The court being slow and expensive is orthogonal and applies across all of law.
- ceejayoz 2y agoThis is the absolute best case scenario - the easiest of wins, on a factual level - and it was still hugely expensive in time and money. (He went bankrupt, too, so they didn't even get to recoup those fees.) If you're one of the kids Jimmy Savile raped, do you think they've got those resources to fight a multi-year court battle with someone who's been covering their tracks successfully for over sixty years? The BBC won't risk talking about it, what hope do you have? Note that once he died and libel suits couldn't be raised any longer, hundreds of victims came out within the year.
- rscho 2y agoSo they got scared and jumped the gun in an attempt to protect the Scala community?
- C0mm0nS3ns3 2y agoProbably a more accurate statement would be: "So they got scared and jumped the gun and in so doing risked ruining someones life in an attempt to protect the Scala community."
- coolThingsFirst 2y agoTechnically speaking is he recovering fully from this?
- tristor 2y agoDoes anyone ever recover fully from years of income loss? "Time in the market beats timing the market" and time is our most precious resource. It doesn't sound like this settlement (based on the attached court order) makes him whole financially in any way from the impact.
- coolThingsFirst 2y agoYeah, good years and bad years kind of a thing. People recover from bankruptcies. I meant in the way of recovering his social image because this is brutal.
- VirusNewbie 2y agoNot to protect the scala community. To tank a rival. Miles Sabin (the accuser and organizer or the letter) runs a competing consulting service that directly competes (competed?) with Jon Petty, who ran another consulting service also in the UK.
- tsss 2y agoI don't think it was out of competition. To borrow some language from the aforementioned open letter: This is very much a "pattern of behaviour" with these people, directed against anyone and everyone that makes a compelling political target. Travis Brown must be the worst of them, who isn't even really a part of the "Scala community" anymore since he dedicates 100% of his time not on Scala development but on coordinating lynch mobs against his personal enemies within the Scala community. Coincidentally, he is also the new boyfriend of Yifan Xing (the accuser) and a sworn enemy of Jon Pretty.
- latchkey 2y agoPreviously: https://medium.com/@yifanxing/my-experience-with-sexual-harassment-in-the-scala-community-9245b4a139de https://medium.com/@yifanxing/my-experience-with-sexual-hara... https://scala-open-letter.github.io/ https://scala-open-letter.github.io/
- andrelaszlo 2y agoSo if I got this right it's the open letter (second link) that was deemed defamatory, and not the story from the first link? > The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant. How does this vindicate him?
- tristor 2y agoTo be exactly correct, he sued for defamation four (4) of the signatories of the open letter, because the open letter was the explicit call to action to cancel him. He can only file suit against persons within the jurisdiction of his home court in the UK, the majority of the signatories, as well as the two accusers are not UK persons and cannot be sued in that context. Whether or not that vindicates him is an exercise to the reader.
- aeurielesn 2y agoIf four (4) of the signatories can't prove the allegations, how will five (4+1) be able to do so?
- tristor 2y agoI make no claims or judgement either way. I just acknowledge that information asymmetry exists as do jurisdictional limits. It's not possible in this case for him to ever be fully vindicated due to the limits of the legal system, but whether it's enough to vindicate him for you is up to you.
- coolThingsFirst 2y agoWhen I read the initial post I chalked it up to there's always another side of the story. The problem is while we want to really punish rapists we can't just do witch hunts based on hearsay and throw innocent people under the bus. Also the importance given to 21 and 35 seems indirectly to imply something shady which is not the case, it can be a relationship of 2 consenting adults. I wish all the best and may you even further clear your name. You went through a horrible ordeal.
- AzzieElbab 2y agoSame. This came amid a civil war in the Scala community, too.
- stewoconnor 2y agoThis was absolutely not based on hearsay. We made our decision to sign the letter based on direct evidence, not hearsay. The open letter links directly to evidence which is not hearsay.
- tristor 2y ago> The open letter links directly to evidence which is not hearsay. If you're referring to the two blog posts, that is testimonial evidence only. While it /is/ possible to convict on the basis of only testimony, it's very rare, as testimony usually needs to corroborated by documentary or physical evidence, or at minimum be supported by a preponderance of other types of evidence which makes the claims against a defendant more likely to be true than that they are false. I am not you, I don't know you, and I don't have any particularly strong opinion about this situation. That said, you're all over the comments here, trying to defend the contents of the open letter. If you believe in this so strongly, I'd advise that you provide stronger evidence to support your position. Simply believing someone else who told you something is not substantial or corroborative.
- tatra_ 2y ago[dead]
- throwaway042624 2y agoHmm. Google seems to remember several threads on this debacle. HN seems to have memory holed them. Complete empty pages. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26961595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26961595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26967283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26967283 What's going on, dang?
- ceejayoz 2y agoHN has been going up and down all day (I've been getting partial page loads on my profile). No conspiracy needed; there's just something busted.
- function_seven 2y agoAll stories on the site this morning were lacking any comments. Not specific to this story.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gedy 2y agoI do like this exchange from the first: calylex on April 27, 2021 | unvote | next [–] You have no evidence to be smearing someone's name and defaming them on HN in this way. Stop this behavior until there is legal grounds for doing so. rodgerd on April 28, 2021 | parent | next [–] It's not defamation if it hasn't been judged so in a court of law. I guess it is now, but 3 years later seems damage has been done.
- cbeach 2y agoA quick bit of math on the age/score of this story vs. others on the home page shows that this story has been deliberately buried. Probably by flags as opposed to human moderation, but in fairness to Jon Pretty, the moderators should step in and ensure this story gets equal access to the home page as the original witch hunt against Jon Pretty got.
- rafram 2y agoTwo curiosities to note: - He did not sue his accuser. He sued people who trusted her word and amplified her allegations. England's (draconian) libel laws would require them to prove that the allegations were true. That's obviously very difficult. - He lives in Germany, but he chose to sue in England. Germany has more typical libel laws that would require him to prove that he was defamed.
- throwaway11460 2y agoMaybe he chose England so he could understand the language and system of justice.
- vezycash 2y agoWouldn't suing quicker have saved him a lot of grief?
- hobotime 2y ago[flagged]
- stewoconnor 2y agoI signed the letter and I fully stand by everything it says. I have talked to Yifan and I feel sorry for her and believe her. It was well known, and well discussed that women in the scala community knew to warn other women about Jon Pretty. I have heard this both directly and indirectly from multiple prominent women in the Scala community.
- cbeach 2y ago[flagged]
- stewoconnor 2y ago[flagged]
- tatra_ 2y agoCould you clarify this for me? How does speaking to those who claim to have been harmed by him serve as proof that he indeed committed these harmful acts? Additionally, if these individuals were harmed - why didn't they report it to the police? Is there any evidence that corroborates these claims? Additionally, do you or any of the other signatories possess a legal background that would enable you to review this evidence and confirm its credibility and the truthfulness of the claims? If such evidence exists, why haven't these individuals pursued legal action, and why hasn't Jon been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
- VirusNewbie 2y agoI’m glad something like this happened, it felt very orchestrated. If you look at the accused, he also owned a UK Scala consultancy that directly competed with Miles Sabin. His MO seemed to be finding people who would support his public accusations to ruin reputations. He tried to get me to do it as well. It was weird.
- rafram 2y ago> Miles Sabin was always whispering in people’s ears to get them to publicly denounce his consulting rivals. > He tried to get me to do it as well. It was weird. Responding to a post about a libel case based on he-said-she-said allegations… by making your own potentially libelous allegations? Careful!
- VirusNewbie 2y agoI have chat logs.
- ceejayoz 2y agoProving the Holocaust happened in a UK libel proceeding required two years and millions of dollars of litigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd ; a US court would've likely summarily dismissed it on day one. You'd likely need a lot more than raw text logs in defense.
- ph1ll 2y agoThe case was not about whether the Holocaust happened or not. If you read the link you posted, "Irving claimed to have been libelled on the grounds that Lipstadt had falsely labelled him a Holocaust denier and falsely claimed that he had falsified evidence or deliberately misinterpreted it". There is no law in England that forbids somebody being a Holocaust denier (unlike in France and Germany). And Nobody was "[p]roving the Holocaust happened in a UK libel proceeding". I have no idea why you keep posting that. The Irving case was based on him not liking Lipstadt calling him a denier and accusing him as a historian of faking data. Since the court accepted that he was indeed a denier and was using dodgy data, they ruled for Lipstadt. Now, back to Pretty. The defendants have apologised so I don't see what there is to debate. Dude, the case is over. Let it go.
- VirusNewbie 2y ago@dang can you unflag this? There’s more to the story and a think it’s suspicious its getting flagged.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nailer 2y agoDirect link to the consent order: https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf https://pretty.direct/consentorder.pdf > My [Lord/Lady], on behalf of the Defendants Miles Sabin, Zainab Ali, Noel Welsh and Bodil Stokke, I wish to associate myself with everything that has been said by Counsel for the Claimant. They wish to apologise unreservedly for the damage and distress caused to the Claimant and for any damage to his reputation by their publications and express their profound and unreserved regret for all of the harm for which they are responsible.
- underseacables 2y agoJustice at last.
- junto 2y agoLooking at the history here on HN, it seems he’s been accused by multiple women. Regardless of him winning this case, as a woman I’d avoid being alone with this guy at all costs and warn other women to do the same.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- borski 2y agoSo, once accused, one can never be exonerated, even if innocent? Because that sure sounds unfair and undefendable. I wouldn't want to be alone with you either, in that case, and I'd warn other men to do the same, given that they may evidently be accused for... having previously been accused? I'm the last person to defend anyone who has laid a finger on or harassed anyone without their consent. But I also believe that anyone can accuse anyone of anything, since that's quite literally what rumors are.
- why_only_15 2y agoThe law has strict standards for fairness, for good reason. It excludes things like rumor, for good reason. But when you as a private person are deciding how to act, you make the best decision available to you with the information you have. The information we have is fairly compelling: multiple women have deeply regretted their interactions with him, enough to risk lawsuits to publish their regret publicly. Why interact with him unless absolutely necessary?
- borski 2y agoBecause multiple people accusing a single person does not make them guilty and is not compelling evidence. Many people accused women in Salem of being witches. Literally zero of them were guilty. But they were made pariahs, ostracized, and then killed, nonetheless. As a private individual you can do anything you’d like; but that doesn’t mean anything you’d like to do will be fair or right.
- ericksoa 2y ago
- dmw_ng 2y agoHe did not "win in court", a consent order means both parties agreed to a mutual resolution prior to a judgement occurring. If I had to guess it was settled this way because of the time, misery and tremendous cost that would otherwise be involved for all parties. "Wins in court" suggests some thorough process leading up to a final evidential determination made by a judge. That is not what happened here, it'd probably be more accurate to say the parties were motivated to cooperate via their solicitors under looming threat of enduring that process. No skin in this game, but looking at it from the respondents' perspective, 20k split between 4 is incredibly attractive: 5k and an apology to put an end to any threat relating to the issue, given the alternative of potentially unbounded costs to demonstrate innocence with a tortuous and uncertain outcome. From the claimant's perspective it is more confusing, triggering such a heavyweight process then settling for so little given the claimed harms suggests all kinds of things, not least including the kind of advice he may have received given the strength of the case as his solicitors understood it.
- skilled 2y agoI am not against having the title changed if mods want to do it, and if there are enough people who think that it should be changed. In my opinion, he did win. The document clearly favours Jon as the other side admitted they have no evidence and made baseless claims - stuck their nose where they shouldn’t have. Make no mistake that this was a serious character assassination based on zero proof or involvement from authorities. This was not a bunch of IRC friends doing a prank for the lolz but an open letter with signatures from prominent community members. I can understand why someone would feel inclined to do something like that, but you ought to consider the repercussions of your actions when it comes to attacking a person based on “word of mouth” evidence. Everyone gets hurt in the process.
- singleshot_ 2y agoHe may have won, depending on what he was seeking through the action and what he received in the consent order. But he did not win in court. He won out of court, and used the court as a mechanism to record and eventually enforce what he won.
- deleted 2y ago
- cbeach 2y agoI honestly don't know how Jon survived this saga without killing himself. The kangaroo court, featuring many prominent members of the "community" was brutal in its rush to judgement. It delivered summary justice to a member of the community and ruined his life in a matter of hours. I was an observer at the time and whilst I didn't know Jon, I was aware of his contributions to the Scala ecosystem. I arranged a video call with him to see how he was holding up, and to try to understand things from his perspective. The man I spoke to was visibly shellshocked and blindsided by the whole experience. He had a brief, consensual relationship with Yifan, and vehemently denies the wrongdoing that she insinuated in her blogpost. But the community apparently knew better. I was already aware of dark political maneuvours in the Scala community thanks to the well published exploits of Travis Brown (who was himself cancelled when the nature of his actions became apparent). Brown didn't just habitually engage in cancel culture. He actually SYSTEMISED it. He wrote tools, published on his github profile to maintain lists of people within the Scala community whose politics he disagreed with, and then he used those lists to attempt to smear those people by association and damage their careers. One of the two accusers of Jon Pretty happened to be Victoria Leontieva (AKA killnicole), Travis's girlfriend at the time. And the other accuser, Yifan Xing, is Travis's new girlfriend now. I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.... While Travis was eventually himself cancelled from the Scala community, it seems his legacy lives on. The whole witchhunt brought deep shame on the community. I think even the founder of the language, Martin Odersky, tacitly endorsed the open letter. That's a terrible way to lead. An ethical leader would have called for an end to the emotionally-charged witch-hunt, and would have called for due process instead. Jon - I hope this vindication gives you the personal closure that you need on the matter. Obviously, I can't imagine you wanting to return to the Scala "community," but please know that the community wasn't united against you at the time. There were many people like me who could see what was happening, and who knew you deserved better than the treatment you received.
- dmit 2y ago[flagged]
- hardlianotion 2y agoThat is a very generous letter by Jon Pretty, considering the rush to judgement made by people who really should know better.
- cbeach 2y agoIn terms of ecosystem, it reflects well on the leadership of Zio (John De Goes) that he refused to join the cancellation mob on principle: https://twitter.com/jdegoes/status/1783878876726219016 https://twitter.com/jdegoes/status/1783878876726219016 Whereas Typelevel, on the other hand, were only too happy to join the mob, and then to stick the knife in with their own lynching-by-blog post: https://typelevel.org/blog/2021/04/27/community-safety.html https://typelevel.org/blog/2021/04/27/community-safety.html Which they still haven't retracted. The legacy of Travis Brown lives on at Typelevel. They're a political organisation masquerading as a technical organisation.
- goralph 2y agoThey’ve caused so much damage to the Scala community. Absolutely toxic. As a bystander to all of this back in the 2010s whilst I was involved with the language, watching the non stop “drama” between members of the community was exhausting and cringe inducing. Glad I left.
- braza 2y agoSeeing from a distant place and not having a horse in this race, I see several lessons to unpack: 1. The borderless and ambiguous relationships in technical communities is officially over, and everyone trying to do the opposite is just risking him/herself in terms of reputation. 2. Do the “I condemn X, let put my name in a public letter” nowadays in that kind of dispute without have access to all information it’s just a dangerous way to gain clout. You do not condemn anything, your 7K followers in twitter and 250 followers does not transform you in a public celebrity that put you in a position to condemn someone. 3. The side that settled with the person that committed the allegedly behaviour should celebrate the outcome because it was way light in comparison with other jurisdictions where it could converge to criminal charges. 4. More or less like aviation, you will not train to fly in the clouds in visual flight, but you will train to not enter in that situation in the first place. What I mean by that is everyone needs to operate defensively and cautiously when the social borders are not totally explicitly displayed. Questions like “Should I engage in that behaviour that can be misinterpreted?”, “is something goes south can I suffer reputational damage?”, “do I have the disposition and resources to defend myself and my position in court?” needs to be answered before engage in open letters and in interpersonal relationships in communities.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JPKab 2y agoAbsolute scumbags wrote things like this back then. Read this and ask yourself what kind of people these are. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26967283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26967283