Wings of Scotland court case

twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1118498206311231489

Judgement here

An interesting legal opinion on the definition of free speech here.

www.scotsman.com/news/kezia-dugdale-wins-defamation-case-against-wings-over-scotland-1-4909109

“This is an important judgement for the right to free speech and a healthy press.

“This ruling clearly demonstrates that every citizen is entitled to make comments as long as they are fair and reflect honestly held views.”

“Despite incorrectly implying that Mr Campbell is homophobic, her article is protected under the principle of fair comment,”

SC not a homophobe, the tweet wasn't homophobic, KD did therefore defame SC, especially as she couldn't explain what was homophobic about the tweet. However, as she interprets what homophobia means in her own individual way (which as the judge notes doesn't meet objective definitions of homophobia), she was allowed to defame him because she didn't actually know what homophobia is.

That's not the argument. Paragraph 97 - which I paraphrase as "if you dish it out, you've got to be able to take it" - is more like it.

Six of one and half a dozen of the other verdict.

They both sort of win in different ways and neither do.

Defamation is a tough one to win.

I like this commentary, written just after the case was heard, including relevant stuff like:

Strangely, no evidence was produced to show Campbell had suffered damage to his reputation. His counsel did not argue loss of face, income, prestige, or career prospects. If anything, Dugdale’s accusation raised his public profile attracting readers to his website.

It is fair comment because anyone reading it might think why is Campbell making a joke which depends on the punchline of a person being homosexual? Why is he emphasising that?

When I read it the point about Mundell being a poor public speaker wasn't even the point I focused on. It is fair comment to make the point that the homosexuality is being centred.

Do you (general you) make jokes where the punchline depends on someone being homosexual? The likes of Jim Davidson did- wouldn't you wonder why that was the focus?

I'm generally OK with the judgement for two main reasons. It's a warning against people being free to label anyone at "-phobic", which can be very damaging, just because it suits their argument/worldview, and it says that if you make a career of hurling shit at people it's best not to complain if someone hurls shit at you.

I don't think it is a terrible judgement - if Dugdale had won, that would have been terrible.

You're right, it's not a terrible judgement in and of itself. My "terrible" should more accurately be limited to that aspect of the judgement of why KD gets away with publicly implying SC is a homophobe.

I think it's actually quite important and good, that the fair comment defence stood.

Could you explain that please? Genuine question, also not a lawyer.

It's basically anignorance is a valid defenceruling

It most absolutely is not saying that. I'm glad he lost. He lost because he made a poor "joke" which only worked because of the reference to homosexuality.

If Dugdale had won, that would have been terrible

Dugdale wasn't the pursuer. Campbell brought the case. He lost so to that extent she did "win"

There's some pretty worrying stuff in the judgement. It seems to suggest that believing words have defined meanings is just one viewpoint

The decision seems to me an accurate assessment of how defamation works.

There is a link on his website to the full decision in pdf form. It's not on the Court website yet.

Having said all of the above, I'll add that I think the rest of the judgement is well argued and I am pleased for KD that the outcome is not as damaging for her as a full finding for SC may have been.

That's a terrible judgement. It's basically an ignorance is a valid defence ruling. SC not a homophobe, the tweet wasn't homophobic, KD did therefore defame SC, especially as she couldn't explain what was homophobic about the tweet. However, as she interprets what homophobia means in her own individual way (which as the judge notes doesn't meet objective definitions of homophobia), she was allowed to defame him because she didn't actually know what homophobia is.

We're firmly in offense lies in the eye of the beholder territory here. According to this, there seems to be no objective, definable quality independent of an individual's perception and interpretation as to what constitutes offensive speech such as homophobia.

It very clearly refuses to confuse transphobia with homophobia. Indeed, as I read it, it refused to agree that any alleged transphobia was transphobia. That was irrelevant in a case about homophobia. It is also not complimentary about Stonewall.

Actually 91 onwards is good too.

Oh and a wonderful comment at paragraphs 97 and 98.

He lost. Good. The decision states

Her comments were fair. Campbell's tweet contained a derogatory joke which was depended on a reference to homosexuality. The comments were fair because the content of the tweet formed the basis of fact for a rational belief it was derogatory about homosexuality people. As one witness said homosexuality provided the punch line of the joke

According to Campbell that makes her stupid- not that he expressed himself badly. Dugdale was not the only person who interpreted what he said in that way. I did. Are they all stupid too?

Bloody hell, that judgement has splinters so far up its fence-sitting rectum it’s giving itself a sore throat. So basically no homophobia or defamation to be seen here, move along?