JK Rowling threatening legal action

[TheLashKingOfScotland]

A TRA and Canadian Green Party rep has made libellous comments about JK regarding her position on trans rights and her suitability to be trusted around children.
JK asked her to retract them or they would hear from JK's lawyers. Currently they are digging in. Seemingly unaware that JK has pursued legal cases based on Twitter comments before and that it isn't acceptable to make unfounded statements about people.
It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
It could have wider reaching consequences if certain sectors see they can't just make unfounded accusations any more.

I don't think that is an apology in spirit or in law so I assume JK's lawyers will be in touch with them.
I wonder how long it will take Nicola to realise this is not a time for game playing and that their anonymous 'supporters' won't cut any weight in a libel case.

These are the tweets she posted about Corbyn, which discussed the income tax issue

I had not seen them but they are so funny and spot on.

I'm also interested in how the press are going to cover this. JK Rowling being targeted by angry internet mobs would be a story normally wouldn't it? But it's all very Twittery and also ridiculous and a bit hard to explain. I hope it gets some coverage all the same.

I agree. Which is why I think the Vancouver rape refuge issue, (I believe this person supports the defunding), would be very pivotal in terms of any reporting.

Transwomen getting defunding for a refuge for women abused by men, because they don't accept men, generates an instant and visceral reaction.

The power move would for JKR to arrange a meeting in a cafe. Buy some cake, have some pleasant chat about the weather.
What social media does is separate people while still allowing access to their minds, with zero consequences. I wonder how many people still would enjoy calling her slurs after sharing a plate of scones?

This is a great article about Seth MacFarlane and his friendship with a man who criticised his TV shows and how they've impacted each other's lives by just sitting down and meeting.

www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-col1-seth-macfarlane-parents-television-council-tim-winter-20190530-story.html

Spurling's second tweet has actually made the matter much worse than if they had said nothing at all. They've drawn attention to the original tweet, and they've reinforced what they said, though in a way that tries to pretend the original tweet has a slightly different meaning. They've also implied that they only deleted the original tweet because they were threatened by someone rich, not because they said something wrong. Trust me, a court of law isn't going to look kindly on any of that. Spurling must be very dim indeed. (Quite astonishing that Spurling appears to have consulted lawyers - any lawyer worth their salt would have advised Spurling not to say anything more on the matter.)

Maybe it was just someone who identified as a lawyer.

Maybe it was just someone who identified as a lawyer.

Someone refresh my memory how it went for Sally Bercow and her "innocent face" tweet. I think the person she cast suspicion on went after not just her but everyone who had retweeted. She was the focus, lost money and cleared off Twitter for five years.
Her parting tweet From 22 October 2013, it says: 'I have apologised sincerely to xxxxxx in court - I hope others have learned tweeting can inflict real harm on people's lives.'

Ironic that Spurling's statement highlights one of the major problems with trans ideology. In fact, someone uninformed about this debate would think it was a statement against trans ideology!

This is what Spurling tweeted:

With that said, I stand behind the intent of the tweet, which is to highlight the dangerous nature of transphobia. Children are particularly vulnerable and must be accepted for who they are, not told that who they are is wrong. With great power comes great responsibility.

Change one word, and it becomes a statement no rational person could argue against:

With that said, I stand behind the intent of the tweet, which is to highlight the dangerous nature of trans ideology. Children are particularly vulnerable and must be accepted for who they are, not told that who they are is wrong. With great power comes great responsibility.

Children are particularly vulnerable and must be accepted for who they are, not told that who they are is wrong.

Someone refresh my memory how it went for Sally Bercow and her "innocent face" tweet

Quite. In fact, Sally Bercow's tweet was pretty mild. It just said:

"Why is Lord McAlpine trending? innocent face"

There is nothing in that tweet that is making any allegation whatsoever. It's just a reference to the fact that McAlpine was trending on Twitter because he was being accused, falsely, of being a paedophile.

McAlpine, who has since died, did indeed go after everyone who retweeted it, though he accepted an apology from most of them and didn't pursue it to court.

English libel courts take a pretty dim view of people pretending they meant something other than the obvious meaning. (Unlike the US courts, which found that Elon Musk's tweet referring to a cave diver as "pedo guy" was not libellous.)

Yes. Telling children they have been born in the wrong body is very wrong.
Encouraging and advising them to take puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is also very wrong.
As is encouraging them to have parts of their body cut off.
Of course we should accept children as who they are.

If SB had just said that without the "innocent face" she'd probably have been fine, if she hadn't commented on it anywhere else to show she did understand why he was trending. She had to be seen as knowing for likes. She had to push it that bit further.

Like this fool who is basically doubly slandering JK Rowling. I would take it all the way. Just to wipe the smile off that person's face. But I am pettier than JK, undoubtedly.

That are not whinging that this should have need taken offline (As if). They just can’t keep flapping their mouth/fingers can they?

Oh my god - check out this stupendous bit of idiocy.

Archive for the benefit of JKR's lawyers in case this person somehow scrapes together the intelligence to delete it.

twitter.com/NicESpurling/status/1266556682743640064

archive.is/yq9Po

sorry, posted too soon!

As far as claims of innocence are concerned, Spurling's tweet has directly triggered loads of this kind of thing:

twitter.com/NatalieTheCapn/status/1266645503363543040

Try to claim there's been no damage, or that no one took the original tweet seriously with people with thousands of followers responding like that.

For the archive:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200530152224/twitter.com/NatalieTheCapn/status/1266645503363543040" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20200530152224/twitter.com/NatalieTheCapn/status/1266645503363543040

Wow!!! Good catches Kantastic and Nauticant !

Screenshots of those tweets plus a photo to get some things in . . . perspective . . .

Fragrant and petite, that Nicola. What a honey!

Quite the payday for JK if she's bothered enough.

I had assumed ‘Nicola’ was a girl’s name in Canada too.

I wonder if The Times will cover it tomorrow. They're usually very good on Twitter and trans issues. If they run a piece then other papers might pick it up.

Quite the payday for JK if she's bothered enough.

I don't think spouting shite on Twitter is very well paid.

I do hope JK’s lawyers are monitoring the usual suspects. The Dr and his legal sidekick are treading a very fine line here, I’d argue the Dr has crossed it by insinuating the claims against JK have a basis.

No idea why my iPad has corrected JKR to “JK” twice there?! Perhaps it’s a Jamiroquai fan!

Dr Horrible and his Igor appear to be confused about the concept that some claims are true, and other claims are false.

Although that kind of confusion is normal in TRAs isn't it? No wonder they're collectively having trouble grasping the concept of libel.