Being defamed on Teams - what do I do

[Anglophobia]

I am being - effectively - trolled by someone on a Teams chat which was the result of a seminar, so has 100+ people on it. I gave the seminar. I am not in the organisation, everyone else is.

Now this is clearly someone having a mental health crisis (and a white middle aged man who couldn't deal with having his entitlement challenged). And so I am not rising to it. But he has doubled down, twice, and the organisation is talking about using 'appropriate discussion' but has not defended me. He's calling me a bigot and an extremist and in his latest missive, this morning - four days after the seminar - has compared me to Hitler.

Specifically he said that I have no qualification in this area: I have tons and that I did not refer to any peer-reviewed research in this area which is not true. I want the organisation to correct this on the chat and then delete him, because 100 people need to know that this is not true.

I want to escalate this with HR (?) or the Chief Executive, but are you going to tell me that I just need to ignore it?

It's also worth noting that this seminar was to cover a massive gap in the organisations knowledge which was completely shocking, in an area to do with equalities and inclusion.

Organisation are on it, agree with everything I put to them (that I am being defamed and they need to defend me) and will get back to me later this afternoon.

Good. Be poised to get a solicitor on the case just in case they don't come through, though!

but more about opening up questions and perspectives rather than saying anything didactic at all.

Is he intentionally targeting you - in that does he realise you are still part of the 100+ teams group? Or does he think he is having a conversation with his work colleagues?

The OP's insistence that because he doesn't agree with her he must be mentally ill — coming from an inclusivity expert! — could also be read as defamation. For all you know, OP, he may have strong arguments to back up his claims.

When you're freelance like this no one owes you anything. No one is obliged to defend you. You give your talk, you put your pov and that's it. Ask him to back up his comments or wait to see the grounds of the formal complaint he brings — which I imagine he's unlikely to do once he stops to think about it.

A defamation claim requires you to prove that the his views caused you 'serious harm'. This is one person ion a Teams conversation.

@Pluvia

The OP's insistence that because he doesn't agree with her he must be mentally ill — coming from an inclusivity expert! — could also be read as defamation. For all you know, OP, he may have strong arguments to back up his claims.

When you're freelance like this no one owes you anything. No one is obliged to defend you. You give your talk, you put your pov and that's it. Ask him to back up his comments or wait to see the grounds of the formal complaint he brings — which I imagine he's unlikely to do once he stops to think about it.

A defamation claim requires you to prove that the his views caused you 'serious harm'. This is one person ion a Teams conversation.

If OP is an academic for example then it could cause her professional harm.

The organisation is also at fault though, for allowing a teams meeting chat to continue outside the meeting, with the external still a participant, and for not clamping down on the content.

I can’t believe anybody is trying to defend this man.
Even if he fundamentally disagrees with you he is handling this appallingly.
Harassing you is NOT ok in any circumstances and I hope his organisation sorts him out.

Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix and Germaine Greer have been called bigots and extremists by other members of the academy. Innumerable academics will have been called similar and haven't started defamation suits.

Specifically he said that I have no qualification in this area: I have tons and that I did not refer to any peer-reviewed research in this area which is not true. I want the organisation to correct this on the chat and then delete him, because 100 people need to know that this is not true.

The other 99 people on the Teams list will be able to google the OP and check her 'tons' of credentials. They'll know she provided peer-reviewed evidence to back up her assertions. They'll draw their own conclusions about this man's behaviour. They may also draw their own conclusions about the OP trying to shut him down.

@Pluvia

Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix and Germaine Greer have been called bigots and extremists by other members of the academy. Innumerable academics will have been called similar and haven't started defamation suits.

Specifically he said that I have no qualification in this area: I have tons and that I did not refer to any peer-reviewed research in this area which is not true. I want the organisation to correct this on the chat and then delete him, because 100 people need to know that this is not true.

The other 99 people on the Teams list will be able to google the OP and check her 'tons' of credentials. They'll know she provided peer-reviewed evidence to back up her assertions. They'll draw their own conclusions about this man's behaviour. They may also draw their own conclusions about the OP trying to shut him down.

The other 99 people on the Teams list will be able to google the OP and check her 'tons' of credentials. They'll know she provided peer-reviewed evidence to back up her assertions. They'll draw their own conclusions about this man's behaviour. They might not do any of these things though.

And while I don't think he should necessarily be deleted off the chat, it's not shutting him down to correct the factually inaccurate things he's been saying. This is about professional reputation.

YANBU to escalate this; YABU to say he's clearly having a mental health crisis, unless you're qualified to make a diagnosis or he has said himself that he's having a mental health crisis. It's damaging to people who have poor MH to equate shitty behaviour and poor mental health.

Bloody hell, I ran a seminar at an organisation the other day (am also a freelancer) and one of the senior white men was simply a bit shitty verbally, nothing like on this scale, and my client escalated it without even telling me she was doing that, because they guy wasn't displaying the company's values. This is shocking and I hope you get the response you're looking for OP.

@Mediocrates

YANBU to escalate this; YABU to say he's clearly having a mental health crisis, unless you're qualified to make a diagnosis or he has said himself that he's having a mental health crisis. It's damaging to people who have poor MH to equate shitty behaviour and poor mental health.

Fair point, I take it back. It's not his shitty behaviour which made me say that, it's the quality and illogic of his writing. But I retract it and apologise.

I used to give a lot of talks (freelance) and my teenage son used to have a lot of fun going through the paper feedback forms I had to collected the end and he would read back to me anything remotely negative (teenage boys can be nasty at times....) There always IS someone unhappy even if it is just about the temperature of the room or they take a different view on an issue etc but thankfully in my case it only went to the conference company and employer not posted on a teams discussion with 100 people.

" Ms XXX has no more credentials for her thesis than Hitler had for Mein Kampf, "
That is not the same as the person does not have credentials though is it? He is saying no arguments to back up a position on a particular issue so I am not 100% sure yet anything defamatory has been said. he has not said she has no qualifications.

With defamation there is a lot case law that numbers of people who views it IF it is defamatory matters and also it should be taken down quickly., However we have Maya F in a tribunal this week because of lack of freedom of expression at work so I just don't get the feeling it is really that bad that these 100 employees are debating an issue and having diverse views on it. It just has a slight feeling of someone does not like someone having different views whereas I would hope every employer would let those attending inclusion seminars to have as different views as they liked.

Even IF defamation is shown then the Teams discussion should be taken down.

They have apologised but not defended me. So I have reminded them of that bit and said I will still escalate at the end of the day if they don't.

@Xenia It's very hard to excerpt the actually defamatory bits from his very long screeds of text without it being identifying, but he accuses me of deliberately lying. He also says that I have no background in a number of areas where I run an organisation which is consulted by governmental bodies and universities. He also repeatedly refers to factual inaccuracies which he doesn't identify.

And if he's said all that on a paper form, I wouldn't mind in the slightest, that's his prerogative. But not to 100 people over teams.

And what's kind of funny, but what has also pushed me over the edge, is that he keeps going. Notably, he said nothing inflammatory during the session, a few mild comments. Then later that day he went off on one, and was told off. So he doubled down. Twice. Then he left it over the weekend, and started off again this morning. Each one more abusive.

These kinds of slurs online, are classified as hate crime, a criminal offence. Report it to police with evidence.

Then send a send a formal letter to the Head Executive of the company concerned to tell them their member of staff has been reported to police for harassment and hate crime. You require that all his messages are deleted and the company posts on Teams a formal, official retraction and denial of his lies, and an apology to you.

That's where I'm coming from, @Xenia. Much as I know the awfulness of being on the receiving end of negative feedback (see my earlier account of being sent in to do some equalities training in an ultra-macho FE department) it's just part of the job that some people won't like you for saying what you're there to say, and sometimes they'll phrase their objections in an unpleasant way. I don't think the fact that someone says something critical or derogatory is harassment: my understanding of harassment is that it has to be regular and persistent.

I'm a lesbian and gender critical and very aware of how many people each month are forced to sit through a day of utter drivel, being told by 'experts' that sex is a spectrum and that girls who like to play with cars and DIY tools are probably boys born in the wrong body. And all of this dressed up as LGBTQ+ when in fact it's just TQ+. In that sort of situation I'd want the freedom to express my rage at being subjected to such rubbish and the idea of being shut down for not reflecting company values horrifies me. People do need to be able to stand up for facts and truth and employers need to understand that enforcing a single company view is not acceptable in a democratic country. (And after the recent Forstater tribunal organisations may need to think extremely carefully about this policy.)

One hopes people will frame their objections in accurate, fact-based and impersonal language and of course it's infuriating and concerning that this man has just flung around accusations, questioned the OP's competence and credentials and so on. But shutting him down will have a chilling effect. We really do need to make space for dissent and we really need to be robust enough to cope with criticism.

I hope the OP and the organisation can find a way of sorting this out. OP's accuser needs to be required to back up his accusations or apologise publicly. But yelling 'defamation' and accusing people of being mentally ill when they don't agree with you isn't a good look.

The irony is that I suspect this man holds opinions I would detest. Even so, I defend his right to express himself.

@Pluvia I don't disagree with a single word you say, and I've apologised for the mental health comment.

But to give you some kind of idea of the level of criticism I am getting, imagine that I am talking about myths about the natural in English culture, to a group of scientists. I post up a picture of a George and the Dragon pub sign, AS A JOKE and then get a long complaint about how I don't know anything about native lizards and so I am not qualified to speak, and in fact there are lots of other pub signs which I haven't discussed and so anything I have to say is incredibly biased.

OP, I note that in your latest post you say this has now gone on for several days. In which case now is the time for his employer to intervene firmly. I hope they respond to your requests.

So, on the edge of 5pm, agreed that an email will go round all participants. I am now asking for oversight of the text, but hallelujah.

Also, later on, there will be a meeting to see what lessons need to be learned. Which is that if someone talks nonsense, they need to be answered.

[quote Anglophobia]@Pluvia I don't disagree with a single word you say, and I've apologised for the mental health comment.

But to give you some kind of idea of the level of criticism I am getting, imagine that I am talking about myths about the natural in English culture, to a group of scientists. I post up a picture of a George and the Dragon pub sign, AS A JOKE and then get a long complaint about how I don't know anything about native lizards and so I am not qualified to speak, and in fact there are lots of other pub signs which I haven't discussed and so anything I have to say is incredibly biased.[/quote]
Given that extra information I'd wonder whether I was dealing with someone who was neurodiverse. I have a family member who is a fairly eminent scientist in his field who I can imagine not getting the joke and then responding in exactly the way you describe. He's ASD. He's very literal-minded. I'll leave it there: I'm not a psychologist. But that might explain quite a lot.

I'm not saying that neurodiverse people get a free pass for poor behaviour, but it's a factor to take into account. Does your inclusivity work include neurodiversity?

@Anglophobia Thanks for reconsidering your wording; glad to read an email is being circulated about what's been said. I wonder if he'd have done the same to a man?

@Pluvia I've sent you a DM as it's almost impossible to answer without being somewhat outing.

But yes, what you say is something I had considered but you still don't get to compare me to Hitler and the Russian government, or to say I am lying...

Yes, he may be disabled in that sense, very high functioning and cannot let topics go. Personally I think the company, the speaker and the man concerned will all most benefit themselves if everyone just gose away and has a good night's sleep and some kind of keeping everyone happy email is sent round one line long to the 100 people from HR along the fobbing off lines of

"We understand there has been a lot of interest since the recent course and are glad the topic has proved useful to many of you. We know the debate has become quite heated after the session and the speaker and others have different views on some topics. We are sorry if anyone involved in the session feels debate went too far and we will be learning lessons for the future."

@Xenia

Yes, he may be disabled in that sense, very high functioning and cannot let topics go. Personally I think the company, the speaker and the man concerned will all most benefit themselves if everyone just gose away and has a good night's sleep and some kind of keeping everyone happy email is sent round one line long to the 100 people from HR along the fobbing off lines of

"We understand there has been a lot of interest since the recent course and are glad the topic has proved useful to many of you. We know the debate has become quite heated after the session and the speaker and others have different views on some topics. We are sorry if anyone involved in the session feels debate went too far and we will be learning lessons for the future."

I can't help but feel that downplays the way a man has discredited a female professional in a semi-public way but questioning her authority to speak on a subject. That's more than disagreeing or going a little too far, and I think glossing over it in a general way does the woman in question an injustice.

Given the intemperate nature of his comments I think there's only one person who's going to come out of this with their reputation damaged, and it's not the OP.

if this is defamation then surely the company is also contributing/liable by continuting to host the comments and not remove them from a teams chat? Particulary once thay have been made aware by the OP that she finds them offensive and untrue. Surely any company would simply delete (hide?) the comments from public view at a first stage.

(currently studying defamation law)

Has the email been sent?