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.

Those tweets shown above ... there is no context to them as they are separated from the Twitter thread.

I am glad to see I was quoted.

This is all getting ridiculous now. But I hope is shining a light.

Not sure what accusation is being levelled at NH. He apologised and was reinstated to the party. If you are suggesting he remains an anti Semite, maybe better be clear about that?

I remain grateful for the support of anyone who has not been found In a criminal or civil court to have contravened the rights of others.

Does anyone have a share token for the Times article about Neale Hanvey that MissBarbary posted?

@Spero

I am glad to see I was quoted.

This is all getting ridiculous now. But I hope is shining a light.

Not sure what accusation is being levelled at NH. He apologised and was reinstated to the party. If you are suggesting he remains an anti Semite, maybe better be clear about that?

I remain grateful for the support of anyone who has not been found In a criminal or civil court to have contravened the rights of others.

I'm not accusing him of anything

But you don't think your detractors are going to make something out of the fact they are accusing you of antisemitism and you're being supported by someone who was antisemitic? I didn't think that needed to be spelled out but clearly it did.

The comments below the article are heartening. There's a lot of support for Sarah, which shows how this is playing out beyond the twittersphere.

(I don't think I can share Eresh - I subscribe, but only in the cheap seats. This is the link I get from 'share' which I think is the same as the other one www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-axes-mp-for-funding-legal-case-against-colleague-05j0f0qlx )

With share token www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ca81f8a8-68cb-11eb-8775-4a2322373a3f?shareToken=50f957d62844c29ba2d2c30e6d8a3cee

I think that nothing is worth losing your home over, no matter how angry you feel about it now. I know you say you aren't minded to settle but I hope that this is because you feel the offer put forward by Kirsty Blackman is insufficient and not because you want to go to court or because not every stipulation was fulfilled. For instance, if you got an apology and deletion, I'd hope you'd take that, even if there is no donation to the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre (although you'd of course be free to donate any damages you receive to them). You can't force people to donate to causes they personally disagree with and I know how disgusted people would feel if a feminist was forced to donate to Mermaids for instance.

I think there will be a struggle to show that this isn't just honest comment, especially in respect of Kirsty Blackman's tweets, which is a defence to libel. I mean if every person who had called JKR a virulent transphobe could easily be sued for libel, she'd never be out of court. Nor would Rosie Duffield, nor the many women who get called transphobes daily. And I am not sure whether I would want to make it easier to sue for this sort of thing. Strict restriction on opinions, even if they are abhorrent, on twitter doesn't benefit anyone in the long run, as it will give fuel to people like Stephanie Hayden who love using the court system. For instance, if I have an anonymous twitter account that is critical of TRAs, I don't want it to be easier for them to get a court order to demand that twitter disclose my details because my criticism of them is perceived as libellous (e.g. if I called them misogynists and they objected to that). I also think when you're personally spearheading a free speech campaign, threatening libel action on a frequent basis undermines the message you are sending. You have also threatened to sue feminists, for instance.

I genuinely don't think it's the open and shut case so many seem to think it is and I think that the fact that these tweets are still up there, despite the authors seeking legal advice, shows that.

if every person who had called JKR a virulent transphobe could easily be sued for libel, she'd never be out of court

No. The reason JKR doesn't go suing loads of people to "save her reputation" is that it would be characterised as someone with vast wealth using it to bully little people and this would cause serious damage to her reputation. It would likely end up as a McLibel situation.

Of course they are. They are not above crude misrepresentations of what I said, taking conversations out of context or just blatantly lying about what I said or meant.

The person now aghast I said his relatives who died in the Holocaust woudl be ashamed of him/her?

that person started the conversation about how he/she/zie was burning JKR's books. I replied to say, in the words of the famous quote, that those who will burn books will burn people and the conversation went from there. The claim that they were Jewish and had lost relatives in the Holocaust came much, much later.

I don't need anything spelling out but thank you for your efforts. What I do need, what we all need, is for politicians to stop fucking about in this way and actually show an interest in running the country, rather than shilling for woke points.

Sorry, that message was in reply to Miss Barbary in case it looks odd out of context.

@Leanandmean31

I think that nothing is worth losing your home over, no matter how angry you feel about it now. I know you say you aren't minded to settle but I hope that this is because you feel the offer put forward by Kirsty Blackman is insufficient and not because you want to go to court or because not every stipulation was fulfilled. For instance, if you got an apology and deletion, I'd hope you'd take that, even if there is no donation to the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre (although you'd of course be free to donate any damages you receive to them). You can't force people to donate to causes they personally disagree with and I know how disgusted people would feel if a feminist was forced to donate to Mermaids for instance.

I think there will be a struggle to show that this isn't just honest comment, especially in respect of Kirsty Blackman's tweets, which is a defence to libel. I mean if every person who had called JKR a virulent transphobe could easily be sued for libel, she'd never be out of court. Nor would Rosie Duffield, nor the many women who get called transphobes daily. And I am not sure whether I would want to make it easier to sue for this sort of thing. Strict restriction on opinions, even if they are abhorrent, on twitter doesn't benefit anyone in the long run, as it will give fuel to people like Stephanie Hayden who love using the court system. For instance, if I have an anonymous twitter account that is critical of TRAs, I don't want it to be easier for them to get a court order to demand that twitter disclose my details because my criticism of them is perceived as libellous (e.g. if I called them misogynists and they objected to that). I also think when you're personally spearheading a free speech campaign, threatening libel action on a frequent basis undermines the message you are sending. You have also threatened to sue feminists, for instance.

I genuinely don't think it's the open and shut case so many seem to think it is and I think that the fact that these tweets are still up there, despite the authors seeking legal advice, shows that.

I have done some reading on the Dugdale defence and I will be interested in what my solicitors say about the distinction between fair comment - which is a defence - and untruthful assertion of a fact, which has no defence.

You are of course entitled to your opinion on the merits of my case and to air them publicly. But I will take advice from those qualified, specialising and experienced in the area at hand, which is very complicated.

@nauticant

if every person who had called JKR a virulent transphobe could easily be sued for libel, she'd never be out of court

No. The reason JKR doesn't go suing loads of people to "save her reputation" is that it would be characterised as someone with vast wealth using it to bully little people and this would cause serious damage to her reputation. It would likely end up as a McLibel situation.

Then how about someone like Kathleen Stock or Rosa Freedman? Both have been accused of being transphobic by multiple people and neither could be seen as so wealthy and powerful as to turn it into a McLibel situation.

I mean, imagine if Owen Jones objects to being called a misogynist and sues anyone who says this. In my opinion, he is a misogynist but I appreciate that not everyone has the same definition of misogyny as I do and that some feel that I am smearing him unfairly. I feel I should be allowed to state my opinion on his words without threat of legal action. If I falsely stated that he was a child-abuser without any proof of this, that would be very different. Where you have someone who believes that anything short of TWAW is transphobic, I can't see how them commenting on someone else's tweets and calling them a transphobe is much different in substance from me commenting that I think OJ is a misogynist. Some people have very broad definitions of anti-semitism too and would regard any flippant comparisons to the Holocaust as problematic. Where it is a comment on a tweet that everyone else can read for themselves, I would think it falls into the opinion category. Otherwise, there really would be an awful lot of lawsuits and it would also work against women who are critical of the TRA movement.

Re Dugdale, Wings lost on "fair comment".

It probably was unlikely that Stuart Campbell is openly, actively, deliberately homophobic but his comment was hurtful and insulting and the barb depended on the politician's father being homosexual and the rather prejudiced view that a homosexual man would never be a father.

The "fair comment" succeeded because, well it is fair comment to point out the flippant, unpleasant remarks and to consider if they are indicative of something worse.

I think one of the issues here (Spero can correct if I'm wrong) is that there is no clear definition of transphobia. And, if it is a 'hate crime' and people are going to lose their reputations, their jobs and their livelihood over being accused of it, there needs to be one.

Misogyny isn't a hate crime. LOJ is never going to lose his job or professional reputation from being a raging misogynist, so there's no point in getting a court to decide if he is or isn't one. When people call him a misogynist he shrugs his shoulders and cracks on because there are zero consequences.

If I falsely stated that he was a child-abuser without any proof of this, that would be very different

But that's the point. Accusing someone of Anti-Semitism or indeed firmly stating that they ARE an Anti-Semite and have been banned from Twitter because of it is virtually akin to accusing someone of child abuse. All without any proof. Anti Semitism is a very serious accusation upheld in law.

@AbsintheFriends

I think one of the issues here (Spero can correct if I'm wrong) is that there is no clear definition of transphobia. And, if it is a 'hate crime' and people are going to lose their reputations, their jobs and their livelihood over being accused of it, there needs to be one.

Misogyny isn't a hate crime. LOJ is never going to lose his job or professional reputation from being a raging misogynist, so there's no point in getting a court to decide if he is or isn't one. When people call him a misogynist he shrugs his shoulders and cracks on because there are zero consequences.

Well, the term 'hate crime' is somewhat of a misnomer because you need to have an underlying offence (like assault) that is then aggravated by being motivated by hatred of someone's race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity for instance. Simply 'being transphobic' is not a crime in itself. So I can't see how OJ could be barred from stating that he objects to being called a misogynist. Of course he can and the term is undeniably a disparaging one. In any event, many GC women have also accused TRAs of being homophobic for not recognising the needs of lesbians for instance. Homophobia is a 'hate-crime' category. But I don't think this distinction makes any difference for the purposes of what we are talking about.

Then how about someone like Kathleen Stock or Rosa Freedman?

That'll be the fact that they're probably modestly paid academics without a fortune in the bank. Who don't want to risk going to court and ruining themselves financially. Obviously.

@PatsArrow

If I falsely stated that he was a child-abuser without any proof of this, that would be very different

But that's the point. Accusing someone of Anti-Semitism or indeed firmly stating that they ARE an Anti-Semite and have been banned from Twitter because of it is virtually akin to accusing someone of child abuse. All without any proof. Anti Semitism is a very serious accusation upheld in law.

Well, not quite. He was commenting on tweets that she had written. His opinion was that they constituted anti-semitism. I don't personally think that they do but I can also understand why someone might feel differently and some people have a very wide definition of the meaning of anti-semitism and would certainly find the Holocaust comparison offensive. I'm not sure it's possible or desirable for the law to have a strict definition of what is and isn't anti-semitism and what is and isn't transphobia or racism. It will depend entirely on the context. People will have different opinions and definitions. Someone who genuinely thinks all transwomen are women will find some of Sarah's statements transphobic. They have the right to say that they find it offensive, but Sarah shouldn't be sacked or criminalised for saying it. By saying that they can't have the opinion that they are offended by it, this is excessively curtailing free speech imo.

@nauticant

Then how about someone like Kathleen Stock or Rosa Freedman?

That'll be the fact that they're probably modestly paid academics without a fortune in the bank. Who don't want to risk going to court and ruining themselves financially. Obviously.

They could crowdfund if they wanted to sue? That's what most people are doing. The point is that expressing opinion is generally legitimate, even if others don't like that opinion or would reach a different conclusion.

I'm not really sure what points you're trying to make. But that's OK.

I agree that any proposed action in defamation raises urgent questions about what are reasonable or necessary limitations on freedom of speech.

I agree that people must be free to express opinions that are considered by others to be offensive. That is an essential element of free speech, which I campaign and fight for.

but there is a line over which an offensive and robust opinion will cross into an assertion of a fact which is not true, but which if widely disseminated and believed will cause serious harm to a person's reputation and livelihood.

I believe that line has been crossed for me. It is not my place to decide that. It will be for the courts if I cannot agree a mutually satisfactory settlement with my co-defendants.

I do not see any contradiction between campaigning for freedom of speech and objecting to defamation. And I don't care if the person is a self identifying 'feminist'. No one has the right to make untrue, malicious allegations that harm the reputation of another and I will continue to take whatever action I see fit against ANY identifiable individual who does that to me.

Anonymous anime or furry accounts I am simply going to have to take on the chin. Their anonymity deprives them of credibility and I have no interest in attempting to persuade Twitter to give up their data. If they have any sense they will be using a VPN in any event.

I don't care if you are a 'feminist' or a politician or whatever. No one has the right to attempt to destroy another person's life or livelihood with lies.

Did the fundraiser disappear because the target was met or for some other reason?
Or am I just being ineffective in looking for it?

Still active so far as I can see.

Still active and growing. Just past the £22k mark. Obviously loads of support out there for action in defamation.