Lilly Wachowski accused J.K. Rowling of "funding trans genocide" and compared her to the Nazis — and now, the author is responding to the Matrix filmmaker's criticism.

And the legal department would have advised the decision-makers that they would lose any defamation case. Hence the apology.

If Rivkah Brown and Novara Media had the sense to consult lawyers, they would undoubtedly have received the same advice. Hence the apology.

They would both have lost because they published defamatory material. Challenging defamatory material is not silencing.

You’ve no clue what is going on behind the scenes.

DMGT (who own the Metro) have annual revenue of around £1 billion. Prince Harry could also testify that the company (and their subsidiaries) aren’t shy of defending a lawsuit.

who had to apologise because he couldn't afford to fight back

Or, had to apologise because they were chatting shit?

Porn addled pair of creeps, as I recall. I’m pulling a disgusted face as I remember it 🤢

Do you understand what a SLAPP is?

ETA: Because a multi-millionaire hasn't been sued for the saying the same thing that someone who couldn't afford to fight back has said. What is your explanation why?

Of course they are! In any case they wouldn't be the ones making the decision - that would be down to the managing editor in consultation with the legal department and their insurers.

Oh, and alcove, your homework today is to go away and learn the difference between “criticism” and “defamation.”

I dare say it will take a few hours, but feel free to come back when you’ve understood it, and ideally no sooner.

Rowling (or rather her lawyers) forced an apology from the Metro for making the seriously defamatory claim that she was a Holocaust denier. I doubt the Metro are short of a bob or two.

Rivka Brown.

Rivkah Brown, Nicola E Spurling, and then there was some other person who had to apologise because he couldn't afford to fight back. The point is she has used her wealth to silence critics. But when the critic is someone who could call her bluff and engage her in a legal battle that would likely require her to go under oath in filmed depositions - then she doesn't take legal action. Whatever your views on JK - any wealthy person silencing critics in this way is outrageous. It's not acceptable.

Which SLAPP lawsuits are you alleging JKR has used? I’m not aware of any at all, so what is your basis for saying this?

Indeed. Neil Blair has issued statements before when the attacks have been in the media. If it’s like anything else,the process will be

1. idiot TRA makes overblown claim
2. media approach JKR’s representatives for comment
3. her agent releases a statement

If, as some claim, there is a genetic component to trans identity, they are indeed the subject of genocide.

By the very people who recommend surgery that removes reproductive ability as "trans healthcare".

Gender affirming surgery is actual genocide.

Don't tell me - you're as GC as they come

we've all seen the "I personally believe in single sex spaces" TRA who then, as you seem to be doing, going to great lengths to imply that sadly it's just not possible so why don't we just agree to compromise ie let some men in

If it walks like a duck..

False.

If Wachowski had attacked JKR on X, she would have responded on X. Wachowski attacked JKR in a widely reported media interview, so JKR responded in a similar way. She doesn’t want to put herself up for an interview, so releasing a press statement is appropriate.

It has nothing to do with how rich anyone is.

Pedro Pascal started a thing using Instagram. JKR responded in Twitter. Pascal is worth millions too.

Find me a single poor person whom JKR threatened with a lawsuit, please.

Who knew explicitly arguing for single sex spaces made someone a TRA! The GC purity test is strong with you, isn't it?

I don't think you can argue that with any deal of sincerity when she's used SLAPP lawsuits in the past to threaten exactly that. But you've missed my point - she hasn't taken legal action against Lilly - nor has she gone on the attack on X. That's the difference here.

TRAs imagine how clever they are detecting a change in tone from a woman who might sue somebody, rather than reacting to some wanker having a man tantrum on Twitter.

there's a reason why she's a billionaire and they're not 😁

I imagine it's because she doesn't want to ruin someone in a weaker financial position by pursuing and winning a court case.

Taking on someone who has the means to pay damages and costs is a fair more equal contest

Oh good Lord. Don't ever go to the suing business, will you.

Usually JK will go on the witty/withering attack on X, but that's usually when it's people who don't have money. When it's a multi-millionaire movie director then suddenly it's her spokesperson issuing statements. It's something I've noticed for a while now.

Please do explain - what do you think is going on?