Sarah Phillimore suspended from twitter

[anothermimsyborogove]

Barrister, women's right campaigner, mumsnetter @spero, and hero, Sarah Phillimore has been suspended from Twitter. Actor David Paisley and others are gloating about it.

spero can you not send a GDPR subject access request to twitter to get the info you require? Granted, it may take a little longer but you might get the info you need?

Trans Activists are relentless - whatever can be tried to shut people up, they will try it. It's just so shoddy of crowd funding organisations to give in to that shit.

jj1968 - finding that the complainant (s) have been libelled is what would be crucial in this case, more than any payout would be the signal it sends that - yes, even on twitter! - you can't just tell blatant lies about ppl who oppose your ideas.

Spero us right - these lies can spread far and wide in an instant, especially from such a high profile account as that.

finding that the complainant (s) have been libelled

Technically they have been libelled - if is was found to be libel - by anyone who reproduced the tweet whether by retweeting or quoting it. Somewhat ironically a court could find that Shrier has libelled JK Rowling, although it would probably be a bit off solidarity-wise if Rowling took her to court for it. Be funny though.

None of this shit is funny. At all.

Thanks Spero. I’m ashamed I’m not doing more, but very glad that you are prepared to take this on

@WhatWozZat

spero can you not send a GDPR subject access request to twitter to get the info you require? Granted, it may take a little longer but you might get the info you need?

As far as I know Twitter just ignores orders and requests. I assume I could try that with the Ireland HQ but I have no idea what the US HQ would do with it. Let's see if they respond to the BBB. Surely they must know why they have failed to restore my account.

Impatiens, I'm afraid JJ is right. If you respond to libellous comments, then the court will likely deem you to have purposefully amplified them, and thus, undermined your own case. I learned this the hard way (not in connection with currently being sued by an obsessive litigant). The fact that I responded to deny what was an obvious truth then made bringing a claim more difficult, or so I was advised - not impossible but it's a battle I didn't want.

Sarah has, of course, blogged about this, and repeatedly stated that she is neither transphobic nor anti-semitic (which is something I have no personal view on); hence I imagine she may have been given similar advice. It's frustrating and difficult to take because the natural thing is to want to correct untruths, but you do so at risk of diminishing your case.

Interesting posts.

Anyone remember Bill Roache suing a newspaper for calling him boring? Now that was pre social media so arguably not comparable. He won the case

More recently - and involving social media - the case of Jack Monroe vs Katie Hopkins. Didn't JM successfully sue KH on the basis of reputational damage?

All I am pointing out here is that people have sued on this basis and won. I'm not going to comment on the individuals involved.

Of course this is just my view as a lay person who has a very basic understanding of the law.

flippinada - ”Anyone remember Bill Roache suing a newspaper for calling him boring? Now that was pre social media so arguably not comparable. He won the case”

Now that really was funny!

IIRC he cited such things as being a Druid to prove he was not “boring”.

There are no boring Druids, as any fule kno!

@flippinada

Interesting posts.

Anyone remember Bill Roache suing a newspaper for calling him boring? Now that was pre social media so arguably not comparable. He won the case

More recently - and involving social media - the case of Jack Monroe vs Katie Hopkins. Didn't JM successfully sue KH on the basis of reputational damage?

Bill Roache’s libel action was also (mainly) about the claim that his co-stars hated him. Katie Hopkins falsely claimed that Jack Monroe had vandalised a war memorial. I’m not sure they are the same as someone expressing a view on public tweets.

I think that when one is on the receiving end of online abuse, it will always feel like an unacceptable line has been crossed. It doesn’t mean it has in a legal sense though. For instance, today I have been reading lots of people describe the academic Alison Phipps as a rape apologist (arguably quite damaging allegation). This is based on an article she has written, which some people interpret one way and others a different way. I don’t think she should have a right of action against those who call her a rape apologist, even if she feels it damages her reputation. We can all see what she said and judge for ourselves. It’s an opinion on a statement, not an allegation plucked out of thin air.

Leanandmean

I see what you're saying, but iirc much of the case was based on tweets? That is my recollection but if course I may be wrong - shall check the judgement.

I'm aware of the Sarah Phipps article and the controversy around it.

MoleSmokes

I remember it well! Can recall at the time thinking it was a really bizarre thing to sue about.

I found a decent summary on the Monroe/Hopkins case on Wikipedia (of all places) and my recollection was correct, it was a twitter spat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_v_Hopkins

Yes it was. JM asked KH to retract a tweet she made implying that JM vandalised war memorials and she refused. JM sued her for libel.

It's also worth noting that JM asked KH to make a donation to a cause she was ideologically opposed to (wrongly in my view but that's not the point I'm making) Someone mentioned this earlier about the request to donate to Vancouver Rape Relief.

Oh that's right, she did (the donation I mean). I'm just reading through the JM/KH judgement now.

Costs in the Hopkins case were about £360K and KH lost her house. But the court found she defamed Monroe and could have settled for about £5K which court found reasonable.

My problem is that it is being alleged I was suspended from Twitter for anti semitism, some are saying Holocaust denial. This is not true. It is not a comment on my articles or blog posts which people can read and make up their own mind about. It's a statement of fact which is not true and which is damaging to my reputation.

But I have yet to get any formal advice from my solicitors. And I will have to listen to it. They know the law, I don't.

But whatever happens with any court case, that isn't really the point. The point is that this tactic of smears and mobbing is deliberate and it is done to silence us. I just want to show that it doesn't always work.

Have they given you any timeframe? I imagine there's a lot to get through.

Surely there must be some understanding of how twitter SM works and that quote-tweeting an offensive remark is intended to highlight a lie not spread it?

In any case, I totally agree with Spero that they can't keep getting away with this stuff, it only leads to more damaging lies.

I think there is a difference between vaguely calling someone a transphobe, homophobe or misogynist, and accusing them of Holocaust denial or saying that they chose their pen name deliberately to refer to a practitioner of gay conversion therapy.

@flippinada

Have they given you any timeframe? I imagine there's a lot to get through.

They were supposed to get back to me on Thursday! I think there is an awful lot to wade through.

Spero - "My problem is that it is being alleged I was suspended from Twitter for anti semitism, some are saying Holocaust denial. This is not true. It is not a comment on my articles or blog posts which people can read and make up their own mind about. It's a statement of fact which is not true and which is damaging to my reputation. "

Of course, once someone has been booted off Twitter, all the Tweets disappear. The supposed "evidence" has gone and people can make up whatever BS they like.

"Holocaust denial" is serious enough to be illegal in some countries:

"Legality of Holocaust denial"

Sixteen European countries and Israel have laws against Holocaust denial, the denial of the systematic genocidal killing of approximately six million Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. Among the countries that ban Holocaust denial, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as the display of Nazi symbols.

Countries where Holocaust Denial is illegal:

2.1 Australia
2.2 Austria
2.3 Belgium
2.4 Bosnia and Herzegovina
2.5 Czech Republic
2.6 France
2.7 Germany
2.7.1 § 130 Incitement to hatred
2.7.2 Other sections
2.7.3 Judicial notice
2.8 Greece
2.9 Hungary
2.10 Israel
2.11 Italy
2.12 Liechtenstein
2.13 Lithuania
2.14 Luxembourg
2.15 Netherlands
2.16 Poland
2.17 Portugal
2.18 Romania
2.19 Russia
2.20 Slovakia
2.21 Spain
2.22 Switzerland
2.23 United States

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial

"‘Landmark decision’ in UK upholds conviction for Holocaust denial"
According to the Campaign Against Antisemitism organization, the decision sets a precedent that Holocaust denial is ‘grossly offensive’ and therefore illegal.

www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Landmark-decision-in-UK-upholds-conviction-for-Holocaust-denial-580589

@Spero yes, I bet there is! Fpingers crossed it doesn't take them too long.

think there is a difference between vaguely calling someone a transphobe, homophobe or misogynist, and accusing them of Holocaust denial or saying that they chose their pen name deliberately to refer to a practitioner of gay conversion therapy

Agreed. I've been called all sorts on twitter. Awful, but you get inured to it after a while.

@impatiens I'm currently making my way (very slowly) through the JM vs KH judgement and noticed that a guide to how twitter works has been appended. Haven't got there yet though.

@Spero Have the people you are actually threatening to sue accused you of being a holocaust denier?