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.

AnotherLass maybe, although we often call them homophobic too, which surely is as serious as calling someone transphobic or anti-semitic. And today, Sally Hines has been accused of being racist due to her tendency to appropriate the struggles of black women, yet refusing to listen to those black women. Again, absolutely fair comment in my view but I can see how she would object to it and argue that it is unwarranted. When you look at what we GC people say in response to TRAs, it often goes way further than accusing them of misogyny, which is why I am concerned that tightening the law could have undesirable consequences.

If Sarah took and won this case, how would that affect the law on freedom of speech?

Genuine question as IANAL.

It depends on how far the case goes as to what impact it has but if it tightens the boundaries of what can be seen as honest comment, this would be detrimental in my view.

Yesterday, that unhinged MRA, Oz Katerji, launched an attack on a load of GC feminists, including telling two members of the LGB Alliance to go fuck themselves. He has now threatened to sue Helen Joyce for calling him homophobic in response to his MRA/TRA behaviour. This is another of the examples I am talking about where this could actually harm GC women. He would argue that the allegation of homophobia is baseless and defamatory. From an objective point of view, it’s probably quite a weak argument that someone is definitely homophobic because they tell someone who happens to be a lesbian to go fuck themselves. If labelling someone as homophobic/transphobic/racist weren’t permitted as honest comment without having to be ‘objectively true’, I suspect he would win his case. However, I think Helen should absolutely be allowed to interpret his words the way she has and say it. She’s reacting to his words, not making up baseless allegations against him. And someone reacting to Sarah’s words about trans rights and the start of another Holocaust is allowed to say that her words are anti-Semitic imo. Someone saying she is a Holocaust denier is a whole different thing because there’s no evidence that she’s ever said anything like that.

If this case were to be successful and establish that the defence of honest comment is much narrower than previously thought, it would absolutely limit how women could respond to someone like Oz and the many other TRAs and MRAs online. That’s why I am against it and I think anyone who is concerned about free speech should be too.

Just to let you know I am meeting my solicitors tomorrow and I am keen to discuss with them the parameters of the 'fair comment' defence.

Of course I am concerned about limits to freedom of speech because they will be used, I am sure, disproportionately to attack women for speaking about sex and gender.

But If 'fair comment' is given free reign then you might as well abandon the law of defamation and I think that would also be very harmful to society. It is, as ever, about striking a balance.

I think there is clear evidence of malice in the attacks against me. I do not think that objectively it can be shown to be 'fair comment' to allege what has been said about me. I want to, in particular, examine DP's 'interpretation' of my tweets and ask what is 'fair' about that.

It may be that a court doesn't agree with me or that my solicitors advise me that it just isn't worth the possible huge costs bill to explore this.

If I do NOT proceed I am going to blog about this in some detail via the Fair Cop website, as I agree that the implications for freedom of speech need full ventilation and consideration.

But freedom of speech cannot survive an environment where one side of an argument is allowed to attack, bully and intimidate another with no fear of any consequence. People are justifying the attack on the LGB Alliance by saying they don't have to be 'polite' to bigots.

But this is emphatically NOT about asking people to be 'polite' or 'kind' to people or about views they find distasteful. It is however asking people not to threaten, harass, intimidate or tell lies about people they don't like.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but if they genuinely believe X comment to be Yphobic/ anti-Semitic etc is it lying? Could that be proved?

I think I ought to be able to challenge the statement made by DP that I 'want to burn down a synagogue' for e.g.

a) it is not true
b) no reasonable person reading what I wrote could think it true

I think I ought to be able to challenge the statement made by both DP and KB that I was suspended from Twitter for anti Semitism as this is not true.

Freedom of speech cannot extend to allowing people to say things that aren't true and which hurt the reputations of others. What looks like the fundamental issue here is the extent to which DP and KB can say they genuinely hold this view. I hope the test for that incorporates some element of objectivity because I do not think the view is reasonable, even if 'genuine'.

I think harassment is something entirely separate from defamation though. Of course it’s wrong to harass someone, through whatever means, and there are legal avenues you can take, both in civil and criminal law, to protect yourself.

I don’t think the honest opinion/fair comment defence is subject to a requirement of reasonableness (ie that the reasonable person would have had the same view). It just has to be honestly held. I guess maybe you could argue that nobody could honestly take from your tweet that you were threatening to burn down a synagogue or compare Jews to dogs so DP is unlikely to actually hold that belief. However, I think it’s fairly well known that many see any comparisons to the Holocaust as being anti-Semitic and that many have a very wide definition of transphobia, which would definitely encompass some of your tweets. I don’t think it’s for the law to decide what someone can personally think or say is x-phobic. Obviously higher standards have to apply in some circumstances. For example, I don’t think that you should be dismissed from your employment just because someone, however honestly, finds your perfectly lawful views objectionable.

I would also note that you have had accusations of transphobia levelled against you since you started speaking out about it, which might lead the court to wonder why this episode was so much worse than any previous ones and why it caused particular damage to reputation.

think I ought to be able to challenge the statement made by DP that I 'want to burn down a synagogue' for e.g.

Surely if he said that that's skirting very close to the Hopkins v Monroe judgement. Hopkins tweeted to Monroe "have you vandalised any war memorials recently" which is what kicked it off.

On 18 May, a few days later, Hopkins tweeted to the food writer Jack Monroee^: "Scrawled on any war memorials recently?" Monroe responded that she had never vandalised a war memorial and had family members in the armed forces. Hopkins responded in a tweet asking someone to explain the difference between Penny (an "irritant") and Monroe ("social anthrax").[4]
Monroe asked for a retraction via Twitter and was blocked by Hopkins. Monroe asked Hopkins to make a public apology and give £5,000 to "migrant rescue" as a settlement to prevent the matter going to court.[4] Hopkins did neither, and the matter proceeded to court.

On 10 March 2017, Mr Justice Warbyy^ judged that the two tweets sent by Hopkins were defamatoryy^ to Monroe (according to the Defamation Act 20133^) and were the source of "serious harm", a prerequisite for demonstrating libel. The court assessed the damage to Monroe at £24,000—£16,000 for the first tweet, and £8,000 for the second.[4] Hopkins was also ordered to pay costs,[5] estimated at over £300,000.[6]^^

Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroevv_Hopkins

Slightly off topic, but I saw Katie Price on Good Morning talking about Harvey"s law. She spoke about the online trolling of her son Harvey, who has physical and intellectual disabilities. She spoke of how people felt it was acceptable to say things online that they would never say to your face. It was very interesting and worth a look for anyone that missed it.

@Leanandmean31

I think harassment is something entirely separate from defamation though. Of course it’s wrong to harass someone, through whatever means, and there are legal avenues you can take, both in civil and criminal law, to protect yourself.

I don’t think the honest opinion/fair comment defence is subject to a requirement of reasonableness (ie that the reasonable person would have had the same view). It just has to be honestly held. I guess maybe you could argue that nobody could honestly take from your tweet that you were threatening to burn down a synagogue or compare Jews to dogs so DP is unlikely to actually hold that belief. However, I think it’s fairly well known that many see any comparisons to the Holocaust as being anti-Semitic and that many have a very wide definition of transphobia, which would definitely encompass some of your tweets. I don’t think it’s for the law to decide what someone can personally think or say is x-phobic. Obviously higher standards have to apply in some circumstances. For example, I don’t think that you should be dismissed from your employment just because someone, however honestly, finds your perfectly lawful views objectionable.

I would also note that you have had accusations of transphobia levelled against you since you started speaking out about it, which might lead the court to wonder why this episode was so much worse than any previous ones and why it caused particular damage to reputation.

I have reacted in the way I have to these accusations because previous accusations of anti Semitism and transphobia were not made by identifiable Twitter accounts with a combined following of over 200K followers and then also published online in newspapers.

I have for a long time shrugged off the accusations of anonymous accounts made to limited audiences. This is very different. One of those making the claims is a serving MP. I suggest this is in a very different league to the usual smears and insults I have faced on a daily basis.

All the best for your meeting today Spero - I hope you get some answers.

Thanks for the update Sarah.

Thanks! Meeting in 20 minutes!

Productive meeting with legal team. Written what I hope is final update for the crowdfunder project.

Thanks for all the comments and support. I hope I get to write about this and I will definitely be quoting some of the comments here!

"It looks as if it will take 7 days to close the project down and distribute funds so I will take this opportunity for one final update.

I have had a productive meeting with my solicitors this afternoon. Letters will now be sent. I will not say any more about their contents.

If the matter proceeds to court I am likely to agree that the correct jurisdiction is Scotland.

If the matter doesn't proceed then I will distribute the funds remaining.

Unless I am restrained by any agreement or order I will then write about what has happened for the Fair Cop site. I think some very interesting issues have been raised about freedom of speech, what is legitimate public comment and how as a society we are dealing with disagreements over issues of great importance.

And of course, whatever I say will be underpinned by my right to fair comment."

That sounds really positive Spero

It will be very interesting to see the outcome of all this.

I think some very interesting issues have been raised about freedom of speech, what is legitimate public comment and how as a society we are dealing with disagreements over issues of great importance.

Yes I completely agree. Good luck

Hoping the news keeps being positive

Interesting update.

archive.is/4uzJY

DP keenly aware of the impact on his mental health and physical safety when he is 'harassed' online - pity he doesn't spare as much thought for the victims of his behaviour, most of them women.

I am sorry to hear this @Spero as l first came across you on Twitter through your child protection work and many of your writings have been really helpful to me as an adoptive parent.

@drspouse

I am sorry to hear this *@Spero* as l first came across you on Twitter through your child protection work and many of your writings have been really helpful to me as an adoptive parent.

I am glad you found it helpful - Child Protection Resource still going strong after its birth on mumsnet!

Thank you, barrister Phillimore, for converting this important online debate into real world action. If I can offer any real world help, I'm here. This thread made me think of what I read about Boko Haram today and how little Twitter did except generate outrage,while an unknown Swiss diplomat actually rescued those young women through quiet action and diplomacy. This debate needs to take place in the real world, based on facts. Twitter is an irrelevant hatred fueled distraction.

Thank you - I think that's a very good point.

It's interesting how the universal response to my suspension - from friends obvs, not the gleeful ones on Twitter - is 'thank goodness, its a terrible place, it does more harm than good etc etc'

I still think Twitter is unmatched for its reach - but of course that is a negative as well as a positive. Now that I have made the connections I need to make off line, I am struggling to think what positive impact Twitter was having on either my life or the causes I think worthwhile. It just seemed to be making me a bigger target for an increasingly unpleasant group of people.

So far, far, far more important than any Twitter engagements will be the now huge variety of legal actions underway.

So far, far, far more important than any Twitter engagements will be the now huge variety of legal actions underway.

Yes

That's a dreadful article in The Herald. Full of innuendo and smears.

Funny how he's so concerned about free speech now.