www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334987...ng-libel-battle.html


So Laurence Fox has proved a point but got fined for it. Stonewall called Fox a racist so he called them a name back.

He claimed, from a very high online profile position, and without any evidence, that two people were paedophiles. Online vitriol can destroy lives and careers. I hope there are more cases like this. Fox is a bitter man, who's career in my view was unjustly curtailed. But he should find more positive and intelligent ways to move forward.

If you going to name call expect something back. However only wimps settle things in court.

Green Man wrote:
If you going to name call expect something back. However only wimps settle things in court.

It can be a fine distinction but there was one between those saying they think Fox is "racist" and Fox responding that they are "paedophiles".

Fox rants about freedom of expression and thought, but his legal bill illustrates these principles are healthy and protected in defamation law, at least. He could have said he thinks Blake and Seymour are paedophiles.

Fox mistakes legal and semantic distinctions for moral hypocrisy and persecution.

His problem is as old as the hills: he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. And no one is.

Green Man wrote:
only wimps settle things in court

Where then should they go for justice?

Al Gershwin wrote:
Green Man wrote:
only wimps settle things in court

Where then should they go for justice?

Sounds like a playground spat. However where I grew up people had fights to solve their differences. No lawyers or police was ever needed.

It's like Owen Jones who received a kick in pub couldn't of been that hard. In my day that would start a bar brawl and you had 2 choices. You could of either run or join in. If you wanted to run away, you just let the patrons do their thing.

No justice then - just the law of the jungle, with wild west rules.

Wyot wrote:
He claimed, from a very high online profile position, and without any evidence, that two people were paedophiles. Online vitriol can destroy lives and careers. I hope there are more cases like this. Fox is a bitter man, who's career in my view was unjustly curtailed. But he should find more positive and intelligent ways to move forward.

Well, if the judge says Fox was mistaken, he must have been, but I can understand why he may have THOUGHT that the man simulating masturbation with a giant fake penis to a crowd of children might have been a paedophile.

Al Gershwin wrote:
No justice then - just the law of the jungle, with wild west rules.

Whats wrong with that. Sounds like you had one easy childhood! If you called the police the situation got more worse.

Honey wrote:
Wyot wrote:
He claimed, from a very high online profile position, and without any evidence, that two people were paedophiles. Online vitriol can destroy lives and careers. I hope there are more cases like this. Fox is a bitter man, who's career in my view was unjustly curtailed. But he should find more positive and intelligent ways to move forward.

Well, if the judge says Fox was mistaken, he must have been, but I can understand why he may have THOUGHT that the man simulating masturbation with a giant fake penis to a crowd of children might have been a paedophile.

We know why Honey!

Honey wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:


Well, if the judge says Fox was mistaken, he must have been, but I can understand why he may have THOUGHT that the man simulating masturbation with a giant fake penis to a crowd of children might have been a paedophile.

The judge was not saying Fox was mistaken in saying the two are peadophiles; neither was the judge saying the two aren't paedophiles.

He (or she) was saying Fox had no evidential basis to make his categorical assertion on a public forum, and so defamed the two concerned (who I know nothing about).

It doesn't matter what Fox thought. Fox though tries to make it a matter of the judge defending gay "paedos" over white straight warriors for truth like him who fight for "freedom of speech".

When it was just about the (correct from what I have read) application of defamation law.

Fox had all the freedom in the world (defamation laws pointedly uphold freedom of thought) to criticise their behaviours (we live in a free society) and also suggest to they might be paedophiles as a result.

But this distinction is apparently lost on him.

This story is just about defamation law, nothing else. Yet of course Fox and so many others want it to be an extreme: the death of free society!!!!!