SPLC has had to walk back multiple designations when threatened with defamation lawsuits. they even paid out millions for false designations.
calling someone "racist" is not an opinion. calling someone a nazi is not an opinion. it is an assertion of fact, and thus if false, subject to defamation laws. threaten to sue them for their false and defamatory statements, and they walk it back every time.
Strongly disagree. Calling a lawyer because someone libels you is a great thing. It's about time that people faced consequences for falsely accusing others of being Nazis.
Libel in the US: you wrote something that is demonstrably false. You can say anything you want as long as it's clear that it's your opinion and not being presented as fact.
That wouldn't fly in a US libel trial. The plaintiff would have to prove that the person who wrote it intended the reader to understand that she was literally a member of the Nazi party and that it wasn't simply hyperbole.
You needn't preface a comment with "in my opinion", it's sufficient if a reasonable person would interpret your statement as an opinion. Given that whatever version of the Nazi party still exists is an extremely fringe group and that it's a common internet insult to call someone a Nazi, you would have to pretty much explicitly state that you are in fact saying someone is a member of the Nazi party for this to get any traction in a US court.
The plaintiff would have to prove that the person who wrote it intended the reader to understand that she was literally a member of the Nazi party and that it wasn't simply hyperbole.
If Rowling were a member of a nationalist party, I suspect that one might be able to get away with calling her a Nazi.
Note the SNP aren't going around litigating against people calling them Nazis, because Nationalism and Socialism are literally their party manifesto, and the last thing they'd want in a newspaper is a court transcript of two lawyers arguing about how accurate it is to call them Nazis.
Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
I have no interest in trapping myself in your usual sophistic dialogues.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Again...trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic: no.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself, either. I'm interested in what you're actually trying to say. what about this is "trapping yourself in leftist framing"? say what you actually mean.
In order to refute the slander you must explain how false political accusations work. This is not "trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic." It is the explication of how the framing and dialectic function.
Letting such false accusations stand is capitulation.
Even America doesn't allow libel and slander because it's not free speech. Either you can allow the courts to deal with it or we can go back to dueling
Leftists call people "Nazis" because it gives them carte blanche to attack them. Forcing them to recant before their target designation pays off is an appropriate response.
Genuinely feels like they're just quoting the first Raimi Spider-Man film as that line is more or less said during the bridge battle between Spider-Man and Green Goblin because of how close to 9/11 the release was. Originally promo material included Spider-Man webbing a helicopter between the twin towers but that was scrubbed almost everywhere after the obvious.
The only reference to the towers that was left after were limited promo shots where the towers could be seen in the reflections of the mask eye lenses.
It looks like the timing of this was very brief. All JK did was make a legal threat, without enough time to follow through, and the twitter tranny dyke immediately put her skin grafted dick between her legs and ran away.
As a general rule this will not be successful.
The original comment "IS a nazi or at least has views that align with them." is likely not actionable because it was qualified and is a statement of opinion not meant to be taken literally that JK is a card carrying Nazi Party member (who don't exist anyway).
It is extremely difficult for any famous public figure to win a defamation suit.
Doubly so when that public figure "injected themselves" into the controversy as JK has in taking on the trannies.
The UK government/judges will generally side with the trannies.
It only worked this one time because this tranny was uniquely a coward. Most trannies wouldn't back down so easily and you should not interpret this as an enduring victory or a successful tactic.
All your points are valid. However, UK libel laws are a lot more strict than the American ones. So I'm not as sure that this would be a slam dunk for the defendant.
I disagree with 1. Is a nazi is clearly meant to be taken literally and usage of such language has a detrimental effect on her image and reputation because people parrot that shit. Furthermore as a euro she's actually being accused of heinous criminal conduct because nazism is illegal there.
...IS a nazi or at least has views that align with them.
That is, in my opinion, much too vague to be libel. Rowling would lose in court, so this is just legal bullying from someone who has the money to throw their legal weight around.
I think this is funny, but as a fan of free speech, I have to disavow this censorious nonsense, no matter how unpleasant I find the target to be. Hunting down nobodies on Twitter who have opinions you don't like isn't cool.
Not if your free speech is gonna cost me money for something that isnt true. If you called me a name and accused me of something that will cost me money, id expect to be compensated.
In todays age, being called a nazi is almost.. almost like being falsely accused of rape. If you worked for a company, and some crazies called your company and said you are a nazi. Odds are you are gonna get fired.
Not if your free speech is gonna cost me money for something that isnt true.
What was untrue? It was phrased in a vague enough way where you can sneak around any direct actionable content, it seems. Most people have some views that "align" with Nazis. Maybe they like highways, or strong governments, maybe they're nationalists, maybe they're socialists.
...If you called me a name and accused me of something that will cost me money, id expect to be compensated.
Also, where is the harm anyway? This is a nobody on Twitter, good luck convincing a court there was any harm or monetary loss.
In todays age, being called a nazi is almost.. almost like being falsely accused of rape. If you worked for a company, and some crazies called your company and said you are a nazi. Odds are you are gonna get fired.
Women calling people misogynists is libel, and she does that all the fucking time.
Perhaps someone should file a complaint against her?
Nazis is a catch-all
The UK court obviously disagreed.
There's also this weird implication in your comments that if group A says person B is cool and an honorary member of their group, and person B doesn't deny it, then person B is now in group A. That's not how it works. By that logic both Trump and Biden are White supremacists.
This is how you deal with people who call you a Nazi.
i prefer "thanks for noticing".
SPLC has had to walk back multiple designations when threatened with defamation lawsuits. they even paid out millions for false designations.
calling someone "racist" is not an opinion. calling someone a nazi is not an opinion. it is an assertion of fact, and thus if false, subject to defamation laws. threaten to sue them for their false and defamatory statements, and they walk it back every time.
the adl is actually defamation league
Strongly disagree. Calling a lawyer because someone libels you is a great thing. It's about time that people faced consequences for falsely accusing others of being Nazis.
-J.K. Rowling
Was the troon actually committing libel though? I know Britain is a socialist hellscape, but are they actually that cucked?
> Oi M8! YOU GOT A LOISCENCE FOR THAT COMPARISON?!?
Libel in the US: you wrote something that is demonstrably false. You can say anything you want as long as it's clear that it's your opinion and not being presented as fact.
Libel in the UK: you wrote something mean.
'JK Rowling is a Nazi' IS demonstrably false, though.
That wouldn't fly in a US libel trial. The plaintiff would have to prove that the person who wrote it intended the reader to understand that she was literally a member of the Nazi party and that it wasn't simply hyperbole.
You needn't preface a comment with "in my opinion", it's sufficient if a reasonable person would interpret your statement as an opinion. Given that whatever version of the Nazi party still exists is an extremely fringe group and that it's a common internet insult to call someone a Nazi, you would have to pretty much explicitly state that you are in fact saying someone is a member of the Nazi party for this to get any traction in a US court.
So the standard for justice is normalization. How very “democratic”. Totally in keeping with our constitutional republic.
If Rowling were a member of a nationalist party, I suspect that one might be able to get away with calling her a Nazi.
Note the SNP aren't going around litigating against people calling them Nazis, because Nationalism and Socialism are literally their party manifesto, and the last thing they'd want in a newspaper is a court transcript of two lawyers arguing about how accurate it is to call them Nazis.
Anything that hurts those parasites is good
Does it count as libel when queers on the internet call you a stormcuck for thinking we shouldn’t send Israel more MISSILES?
If it does you better watch out
"Of course you should fight fire with fire. You should fight everything with fire."
Rowling is a leftist
No... I'd say using libel laws is fighting fire with water.
Because they like to say 'you have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences'? Now that is fighting fire with fire.
Absolutely not. It's a matter of great importance. Claiming that it's fighting fire with fire, as you said, is saying that it's an unjustified means of fighting back, while in reality it is something completely justified.
Ooooh, we're in the Third Sophistic, aren't we? You sound full of confidence in your ability to answer objections, which is why you want to back out while you imagine you are ahead.
Sophistic, dialectic. Did you just have a crash course on the history of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel? And you just had to use your brand new terms, eh? But you forgot that labeling stuff is not enough. You have to demonstrate it.
So when the choices are Take Action or Take it Like a Bitch,
which one are you espousing?
you seem to have no interest in explaining yourself, either. I'm interested in what you're actually trying to say. what about this is "trapping yourself in leftist framing"? say what you actually mean.
In order to refute the slander you must explain how false political accusations work. This is not "trapping yourself in leftist framing and dialectic." It is the explication of how the framing and dialectic function.
Letting such false accusations stand is capitulation.
or their honor, if they declined, and society enforced that decision.
Our present society does not.
Literally libel and also accusing her of something that is a crime in several european nations.
That’s not an option. So then what?
Well they aren't going away. So you can sit there and let them only be used for evil, or you can at least attempt to leverage them for a better cause.
Even America doesn't allow libel and slander because it's not free speech. Either you can allow the courts to deal with it or we can go back to dueling
Leftists call people "Nazis" because it gives them carte blanche to attack them. Forcing them to recant before their target designation pays off is an appropriate response.
It's extremely good to punish these kinds of people no matter how you do it.
They made this bed; let them burn in it.
Zipper-tits posting their Ls
"an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us" is just cult shit. That's literally a cult mentality.
Genuinely feels like they're just quoting the first Raimi Spider-Man film as that line is more or less said during the bridge battle between Spider-Man and Green Goblin because of how close to 9/11 the release was. Originally promo material included Spider-Man webbing a helicopter between the twin towers but that was scrubbed almost everywhere after the obvious.
The only reference to the towers that was left after were limited promo shots where the towers could be seen in the reflections of the mask eye lenses.
It looks like the timing of this was very brief. All JK did was make a legal threat, without enough time to follow through, and the twitter tranny dyke immediately put her skin grafted dick between her legs and ran away.
As a general rule this will not be successful.
The original comment "IS a nazi or at least has views that align with them." is likely not actionable because it was qualified and is a statement of opinion not meant to be taken literally that JK is a card carrying Nazi Party member (who don't exist anyway).
It is extremely difficult for any famous public figure to win a defamation suit.
Doubly so when that public figure "injected themselves" into the controversy as JK has in taking on the trannies.
Anti-SLAPP laws are a bitch. While no such specific laws exist in the UK right now, their regulators are trying to backdoor them.
The UK government/judges will generally side with the trannies.
It only worked this one time because this tranny was uniquely a coward. Most trannies wouldn't back down so easily and you should not interpret this as an enduring victory or a successful tactic.
That's even better then!
All your points are valid. However, UK libel laws are a lot more strict than the American ones. So I'm not as sure that this would be a slam dunk for the defendant.
I disagree with 1. Is a nazi is clearly meant to be taken literally and usage of such language has a detrimental effect on her image and reputation because people parrot that shit. Furthermore as a euro she's actually being accused of heinous criminal conduct because nazism is illegal there.
in the US, sure. UK defamation laws are obnoxious, and even with such a qualifier, doesn't mean shit.
Still, never forget what the "F" in TERF stands for.
Feminists are not your friends.
That is, in my opinion, much too vague to be libel. Rowling would lose in court, so this is just legal bullying from someone who has the money to throw their legal weight around.
I think this is funny, but as a fan of free speech, I have to disavow this censorious nonsense, no matter how unpleasant I find the target to be. Hunting down nobodies on Twitter who have opinions you don't like isn't cool.
Not if your free speech is gonna cost me money for something that isnt true. If you called me a name and accused me of something that will cost me money, id expect to be compensated.
In todays age, being called a nazi is almost.. almost like being falsely accused of rape. If you worked for a company, and some crazies called your company and said you are a nazi. Odds are you are gonna get fired.
What was untrue? It was phrased in a vague enough way where you can sneak around any direct actionable content, it seems. Most people have some views that "align" with Nazis. Maybe they like highways, or strong governments, maybe they're nationalists, maybe they're socialists.
Also, where is the harm anyway? This is a nobody on Twitter, good luck convincing a court there was any harm or monetary loss.
That's not what's happening here at all, though.
Well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions....
...said a lefty ever, doubt they'd learn from this but good to see them scurry like bugs when you rip up an old house when you get lawyers involved.
If I lived in a castle with a moat and had fuck you money like her I'd sic the lawyers on anyone that gave me a harsh look.
Nice, we'll own the left by using the libel laws against them. Soon, only the government will be allowed to speak. Winning.
It's like watching two chimps fight each other with knives. Bout time she used that fuck you money.
While no longer a fan of Kevin Smith, I have to say I still believe Jay and Silent Bob's method of dealing with online trolls is my favourite.
https://youtu.be/vuBWbpTJRqk
Against Nazis? Why do these people hate Ukraine?
I'm sure I can find a comment by you praising KiA2, does that mean that I'm a woman-hater?
Yes dumbass. I do not like Rowling either but it is clearly libel to call her a nazi.
Perhaps someone should file a complaint against her?
The UK court obviously disagreed.
There's also this weird implication in your comments that if group A says person B is cool and an honorary member of their group, and person B doesn't deny it, then person B is now in group A. That's not how it works. By that logic both Trump and Biden are White supremacists.
He himself does that implication a lot, that's why.
Biden is a white supremacist because he claimed to be a white supremacist
The compilation proves that being asked to disavow them was nothing but a rhetorical trap and him doing so was pointless.
Nazis supporting Rowling =/= Rowling supporting Nazis. The Nazis are downstream of Rowling in this case, and very clearly so.
But it's a "Hitler ate sugar" comparison. It's tangential, not core ideology.
Yeah and the first part isn't