Graham Linehan lost defamation case

Do you mean - look at the lovely seedlings you’re cultivating in this lush nursery? Because I agree, but can’t take all the credit. In fact, to be fair, it’s often people like the OP who peak ordinary readers and grow our ranks for us. Like a lovely manure.

Glasshouse, dear. Glasshouse.

The OP is a TRA and isn’t interested in accurate representation of the case, only in trying to throw shade on anyone who campaigns for the rights of women as a sex class.

The heading here is misleading and I wonder if the poster would consider changing it?

It clearly states at the start that it is the 2nd judgement of preliminary issues. No one has won or lost the case yet if that is the latest news.

@nauticant 🤣

But a win for nominative determinism.

Gosh and dearie me. That’s all I have to say.

.

Only 4 posts to their name and all only on this thread. Interesting....

@OhDearyDrearyMe I am cringing for you. So desperate, luckily us dried up cynical old hags see you.

Presumably another "AI" fail ...

That article is from 2012.

www.iftn.ie/news/FinanceNews/?act1=record&only=1&aid=73&rid=4285229&tpl=archnews&force=1 Linehan sold his business this year, so why resort to begging for his legal expenses. Linehan sold his business to former BBC1 controller Lorraine Heggessey’s UK-based Boom Pictures.

& that is quite obviously why, despite Linehan seemingly begging JK Rowling to fund his legal case, she is not, even though she appears to support him. I agree with all you say. Someone tweeted Linehan is a Millionaire so why is he resorting to begging for money? I wonder how much he sold his business for

,

https://x.com/ScottishPEN/status/1363378001031942150 is a fascinating 2021 thread about David Paisley in which they refer to his tweets but no link to his X account, does anyone here know it?

The only person thinking about this is you, Chris.

Oh I'm sure they knew where to find it already, they better do anyway - the costs could be hundreds of thousands. No wonder Graham is flogging his things..

He's spending other people's money though so he probably will carry on

Very kind of you to alert readers to this worthy cause in case they have not already donated! 💝

I believe that it is on Crowd Justice and is headlined, "I'm being sued by another trans rights activist".

Yes I'm aware of that but given the statements have been found to be defamatory (so Linehan has thrown money down the drain on trying to remove those claims) I think it's more likely that Linehan will lose if he tried to fight this further rather than settle and pay another year or mores worth of legal costs as well. He's spending other people's money though so he probably will carry on 🤷🏻‍♀️

Paisley still has to prove this:

Serious harm

For a statement to be defamatory, it must be seen to have caused, or be likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the individual it refers to.

This requirement of ‘serious harm’ was introduced in the Defamation Act 2013, and later court rulings have clarified the degree that meets this standard.

The decision on whether the element of serious harm is present in each individual case will be down to the court to decide but situations where it may be difficult to prove serious harm include, but are not limited to:

• where the individual affected already has a ‘bad’ reputation
• where the reach of the defamatory statement was very limited
• where the statement criticises services or goods
• where the statement was withdrawn, corrected or an apology was made

Publication

The defamatory statement must be expressed or conveyed to another person or persons.

https://www.lawble.co.uk/defamation/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-5

The "Publication" part is complicated because the judge has ruled that because the original comments:

• were partly or completely deleted, all versions need to be considered as well as how long each version remained online
• were modified by Graham's replies to them, both before and after comments were completely or partially deleted, then perceptions of the comments before and after Graham replied need to be considered
• are not stand-alone but are comments on an article, they need to be read in the context of the article in order to determine how they might be understood by readers.

I would have thought that Paisley should be at least as worried about mud being thrown as money.

By continuing with the case, he is inviting Graham to provide evidence that, among other things, he, Paisley, already had a "bad" reputation.

On platforms that make it clear that you are responsible for moderating your own comments then yeah you're then liable for the comments. He could have just deleted the defamatory comment rather than leaving it there and replying to it especially given he makes clear in his replies that he is aware the comments on the post could be actionable if he didn't want to be held liable.

Given it's been found the comments were defamatory and Linehan's response shows he's aware he is responsible for moderating comments on his substack, I can't imagine it will work well to continue throwing money at fighting it.

Yes, it means just that. Which is one of the reasons newspapers tend to go in for heavy moderation on comments on articles.

Luckily, as Bosky points out, this is a preliminary ruling to say that the case by Paisley can go ahead, so we don't know yet whether, when it goes to trial, the court will find Glinner guilty of defamation.

So, does this mean anyone who posts, blogs, whatever anywhere is liable for any comments on the articles?

That’s like holding the council responsible for the ranting of a drunk on a street corner.

I can’t imagine that will work well. We all know about bad actors and keyboard warriors.