Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#21

Post by jeroenhd »

nailer wrote: post #16
jeroenhd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all. From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not…

What was TR/TM’s evidence that it was MG that was harassing them?

This part of the lawsuit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... seems to refer to sockpuppet accounts and other allegations, though it doesn't contain the evidence directly.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#22

Post by nairboon »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #19
benjojo12 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? If someone posts a huge amount of articles about how you are various non-good things, then a employer might do a simple Google of your name on and think "Oh, actually, I don't think I want to hire that guy" that's worth quite a lot of money if that's a job that you actually wanted to get (and that results in a loss of income/opportunities) Typically speaking, you should probably only be saying things on…

It also matters - or at least, should - whether you're expressing your opinion ("this guy is a fucking asshole"), vs. a claim of fact ("that diver is a pedophile"). I would not particularly want to express myself in a world where calling someone an asshole has a non-trivial chance of costing me £70k plus court fees.

What's the difference between your examples? Both sentences could be an opinion or a fact.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#23

Post by theoldgreybeard »

kasabali wrote: post #11
mythz wrote: post #2

Basically Matthew Garret sued owners of www.techrights.org and news.tuxmachines.org for libel, was successful and was awarded £70,000 in damages. > In my judgment, in all these circumstances, the minimum sum necessary to convince a fair-minded bystander of the baselessness of the allegations against him, to vindicate his reputation and restore his standing, and to compensate him for the consequences he has suffered,…

> £70,000 in "damages" Damn, libel law is ridiculous.

700,000 would have been better.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#24

Post by benjojo12 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #19
benjojo12 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? If someone posts a huge amount of articles about how you are various non-good things, then a employer might do a simple Google of your name on and think "Oh, actually, I don't think I want to hire that guy" that's worth quite a lot of money if that's a job that you actually wanted to get (and that results in a loss of income/opportunities) Typically speaking, you should probably only be saying things on…

It also matters - or at least, should - whether you're expressing your opinion ("this guy is a fucking asshole"), vs. a claim of fact ("that diver is a pedophile"). I would not particularly want to express myself in a world where calling someone an asshole has a non-trivial chance of costing me £70k plus court fees.

Sure but to my knowledge you can call someone an asshole in the UK without being at risk of libel but calling someone a [pedophile/drug addict/similar] is (and IMO should) come with consequences if unsubstantiated

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#25

Post by pavel_lishin »

nairboon wrote: post #22
pavel_lishin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also matters - or at least, should - whether you're expressing your opinion ("this guy is a fucking asshole"), vs. a claim of fact ("that diver is a pedophile"). I would not particularly want to express myself in a world where calling someone an asshole has a non-trivial chance of costing me £70k plus court fees.

What's the difference between your examples? Both sentences could be an opinion or a fact.

"This guys is an asshole" is pretty clearly a subjective opinion I hold about a person, one that others might disagree with.

"That diver is a pedophile" is pretty clearly a factual statement, implying that the person abuses kids, or has been convicted of such. (I know that, uh, the original statement was basically just an insult, but: it does posit a fact.)

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#26

Post by pjc50 »

nailer wrote: post #16
jeroenhd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all. From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not…

What was TR/TM’s evidence that it was MG that was harassing them?

They apparently didn't submit any, according to the linked judgement.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#27

Post by NohatCoder »

TL;DR:

Defendants Roy and Rianne Schestowitz were the targets of online harassment. They decided that claimant Matthew Garrett was behind it, and initiated their own hate campaign against him, in particular using their websites www.techrights.org and news.tuxmachines.org to do so.

The defendants did a very poor job of going to court, even by the standards of amateurs representing themselves, producing almost no evidence, none of which the judge found to be relevant.

Damages of £70K were awarded.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#28

Post by jeroenhd »

mbreese wrote: post #12
jeroenhd wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all. From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not…

> ended up not being convincing enough From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine. My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it ca…

The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there.

The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#30

Post by pjc50 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #28
mbreese wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ended up not being convincing enough From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine. My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it ca…

The paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge ( https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... ) though it's not directly posted there. The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I…

I'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.
Post reply on HN