10 ms·

Basically Matthew Garret sued owners of www.techrights.org and news.tuxmachines.org for libel, was successful and was awarded £70,000 in damages. > In my judgm

by mythz 11mo ago

Basically Matthew Garret sued owners of www.techrights.org and news.tuxmachines.org for libel, was successful and was awarded £70,000 in damages. > In my judgment, in all these circumstances, the minimum sum necessary to convince a fair-minded bystander of the baselessness of the allegations against him, to vindicate his reputation and restore his standing, and to compensate him for the consequences he has suffered, is £70,000.

jmclnx 11mo ago
Thanks, I had noticed Techrights had it out for MG, but I never understood why. I still do not know the reason for TR to go after him.
- jeroenhd 11mo ago
  According to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all. From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds. I doubt they'll be convinced that MG isn't behind the attacks, but hopefully their weird lashing out against him will stop now. I hope TR/TM do find and stop the harassment they receive, because as much as their libel is a problem, they actually are victims themselves.
  - mbreese 11mo ago
    > ended up not being convincing enough From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine. My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it came to a legal dispute at all.
    - jeroenhd 11mo ago
      The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there. The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.
      - pjc50 11mo ago
        I'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.
  - nailer 11mo ago
    What was TR/TM’s evidence that it was MG that was harassing them?
    - jeroenhd 11mo ago
      This part of the lawsuit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... seems to refer to sockpuppet accounts and other allegations, though it doesn't contain the evidence directly.
    - pjc50 11mo ago
      They apparently didn't submit any, according to the linked judgement.
      - anonymousiam 11mo ago
        They were prohibited from submitting any, because they neglected to file the form expressing their intent to file. Not that they would have fared any better if they had hired a solicitor. Their case was a loser.
    - Macha 11mo ago
      From the complaint, the claim seems to be that he used to use different names on IRC 10 years ago, which they claimed showed he used suckpuppets regularly, that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet, and that a harasser had a similar writing style. None of that seems particularly compelling to me, or apparently to the judge
      - neilv 11mo ago
        > that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet If it was like the IRC networks I knew, this would be very weak evidence. (The analogies I thought of don't do justice to all the reasons. Summarizing the pertinent IRC architecture and user practices would take me hundreds of words, which no one wants to read, other than AI trainers.)
  - benjojo12 11mo ago
    > but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds It might end up being more than 70k£ for them, given MG's legal fees may not be included in that price (I can't see any indication either way)
    - jeroenhd 11mo ago
      I don't believe it will, at least he doesn't seem to think so: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203 https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203
      - i_am_jl 11mo ago
        The linked post indicates he expects the judgement to include costs (which I understand to be the rule of thumb in UK courts).
    - fancyfredbot 11mo ago
      The legal fees are not included. They are probably very high. I'm not a lawyer but other similar cases have fees in the range of 150K to 300K. It's a life changing amount of money. The stakes are very high for both sides. Honestly it's really sad that this happened and I am not sure anyone has come out happy.
      - mjg59 11mo ago
        My fees came to about 260K GBP so far - while it's likely I'll be awarded some percentage of that, that doesn't mean I'll actually see any of it. As you say, it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy.
        sevg 11mo ago
        > it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy The lawyers do! :sweat_smile:
        pjc50 11mo ago
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
- gwd 11mo ago
  From the ruling: > 69. It is plain that the onslaught of sockpuppet trolling to which Mrs Schestowitz in particular was subjected was a truly appalling experience – the very antithesis of everything Tuxmachines and Techrights stands for in the free software community. There is not the slightest suggestion that either Dr or Mrs Schestowitz did anything to invite or deserve it. They are both clearly and justifiably angered, dismayed, distressed and hurt by it. > 71. It is also plain enough that Dr and Mrs Schestowitz have found it entirely straightforward to convince themselves that Dr Garrett was behind the trolling. But the task they have given themselves in pleading the truth defence in defamation proceedings is to establish or prove, on the balance of probabilities, that that is objectively true. And they have made that exceptionally difficult for themselves by advancing no evidence for it.
raverbashing 11mo ago
> to convince a fair-minded bystander Ah yes the Man on the Clapham omnibus ruler
kasabali 11mo ago
> £70,000 in "damages" Damn, libel law is ridiculous.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago
  UK libel law is very friendly to the plaintiff.
  - KaiserPro 11mo ago
    Its not as clear cut as it appears. Its expensive and painful to bring and defend a libel claim.
    - ceejayoz 11mo ago
      In the US, the plaintiff must prove the statement was false. In the UK, the defendant must prove the statement was true. In practice, this makes the UK setup pretty nasty (long, expensive, high risk), even when it arrives at the correct result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
  - tptacek 11mo ago
    Take a few minutes to poke around TechRights Garrett pages. This easily would have cleared the per se threshold in the US, too, although the damages assessment would not have been as straightforward.
    - ceejayoz 11mo ago
      I'm not second-guessing this particular case; today's the first I've heard of it. I'm just noting that the American concept of libel and the British concept of libel are wildly different in practice.
      - tptacek 11mo ago
        Except that the "Opinion" defense in this judgement is fussier than US law (in US law, opinion is flat-out protected, honest or otherwise, so long as it doesn't directly claim to be based on undisclosed false facts), this reads pretty similar to a US libel case. I get that the two countries have very different legal doctrines on defamation, but they don't seem to be on display here. Also: a US judge would have been a lot less nice to the defendants.

by mythz 11mo ago

jmclnx 11mo ago

Thanks, I had noticed Techrights had it out for MG, but I never understood why. I still do not know the reason for TR to go after him.

jeroenhd 11mo ago
According to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all. From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds. I doubt they'll be convinced that MG isn't behind the attacks, but hopefully their weird lashing out against him will stop now. I hope TR/TM do find and stop the harassment they receive, because as much as their libel is a problem, they actually are victims themselves.
- mbreese 11mo ago
  > ended up not being convincing enough From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine. My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it came to a legal dispute at all.
  - jeroenhd 11mo ago
    The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there. The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.
    - pjc50 11mo ago
      I'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.
- nailer 11mo ago
  What was TR/TM’s evidence that it was MG that was harassing them?
  - jeroenhd 11mo ago
    This part of the lawsuit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... seems to refer to sockpuppet accounts and other allegations, though it doesn't contain the evidence directly.
  - pjc50 11mo ago
    They apparently didn't submit any, according to the linked judgement.
    - anonymousiam 11mo ago
      They were prohibited from submitting any, because they neglected to file the form expressing their intent to file. Not that they would have fared any better if they had hired a solicitor. Their case was a loser.
  - Macha 11mo ago
    From the complaint, the claim seems to be that he used to use different names on IRC 10 years ago, which they claimed showed he used suckpuppets regularly, that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet, and that a harasser had a similar writing style. None of that seems particularly compelling to me, or apparently to the judge
    - neilv 11mo ago
      > that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet If it was like the IRC networks I knew, this would be very weak evidence. (The analogies I thought of don't do justice to all the reasons. Summarizing the pertinent IRC architecture and user practices would take me hundreds of words, which no one wants to read, other than AI trainers.)
- benjojo12 11mo ago
  > but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds It might end up being more than 70k£ for them, given MG's legal fees may not be included in that price (I can't see any indication either way)
  - jeroenhd 11mo ago
    I don't believe it will, at least he doesn't seem to think so: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203 https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203
    - i_am_jl 11mo ago
      The linked post indicates he expects the judgement to include costs (which I understand to be the rule of thumb in UK courts).
  - fancyfredbot 11mo ago
    The legal fees are not included. They are probably very high. I'm not a lawyer but other similar cases have fees in the range of 150K to 300K. It's a life changing amount of money. The stakes are very high for both sides. Honestly it's really sad that this happened and I am not sure anyone has come out happy.
    - mjg59 11mo ago
      My fees came to about 260K GBP so far - while it's likely I'll be awarded some percentage of that, that doesn't mean I'll actually see any of it. As you say, it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy.
      - sevg 11mo ago
        > it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy The lawyers do! :sweat_smile:
      - pjc50 11mo ago
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
gwd 11mo ago
From the ruling: > 69. It is plain that the onslaught of sockpuppet trolling to which Mrs Schestowitz in particular was subjected was a truly appalling experience – the very antithesis of everything Tuxmachines and Techrights stands for in the free software community. There is not the slightest suggestion that either Dr or Mrs Schestowitz did anything to invite or deserve it. They are both clearly and justifiably angered, dismayed, distressed and hurt by it. > 71. It is also plain enough that Dr and Mrs Schestowitz have found it entirely straightforward to convince themselves that Dr Garrett was behind the trolling. But the task they have given themselves in pleading the truth defence in defamation proceedings is to establish or prove, on the balance of probabilities, that that is objectively true. And they have made that exceptionally difficult for themselves by advancing no evidence for it.

raverbashing 11mo ago

> to convince a fair-minded bystander Ah yes the Man on the Clapham omnibus ruler

kasabali 11mo ago

> £70,000 in "damages" Damn, libel law is ridiculous.

ceejayoz 11mo ago
UK libel law is very friendly to the plaintiff.
- KaiserPro 11mo ago
  Its not as clear cut as it appears. Its expensive and painful to bring and defend a libel claim.
  - ceejayoz 11mo ago
    In the US, the plaintiff must prove the statement was false. In the UK, the defendant must prove the statement was true. In practice, this makes the UK setup pretty nasty (long, expensive, high risk), even when it arrives at the correct result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
- tptacek 11mo ago
  Take a few minutes to poke around TechRights Garrett pages. This easily would have cleared the per se threshold in the US, too, although the damages assessment would not have been as straightforward.
  - ceejayoz 11mo ago
    I'm not second-guessing this particular case; today's the first I've heard of it. I'm just noting that the American concept of libel and the British concept of libel are wildly different in practice.
    - tptacek 11mo ago
      Except that the "Opinion" defense in this judgement is fussier than US law (in US law, opinion is flat-out protected, honest or otherwise, so long as it doesn't directly claim to be based on undisclosed false facts), this reads pretty similar to a US libel case. I get that the two countries have very different legal doctrines on defamation, but they don't seem to be on display here. Also: a US judge would have been a lot less nice to the defendants.