Matthew's side of the story is here: https://mastodon.online/@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer/115...
Here's the other side, for what it's worth: https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2025/11/20/Today_s_Judgement....
Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
41–50 of 102 posts
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#42Earlier 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.
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
where do we land on motherf!cker?
Taken literally it's accusing someone of a specific depraved act, but it's also clearly a term of abuse. My guess (not a lawyer!) is that once a term becomes more associated with abuse the more you're protected.
Hustler basically called Jerry Falwell a motherf!cker but attributed to him a specific act, which they highlighted was satire and not to be taken seriously. Hustler lost in a jury trial and also on an appeal to the 4th circuit. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in Hustler's favor [0]. This is dramatized in the movie The People vs Larry Flint.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
[1] https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-people-vs-larry-flynt/
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#43Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds It might end up being more than 70k£ for them, given MG's legal fees may not be included in that price (I can't see any indication either way)
I don't believe it will, at least he doesn't seem to think so: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203
The linked post indicates he expects the judgement to include costs (which I understand to be the rule of thumb in UK courts).
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#45Earlier 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…
> but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds It might end up being more than 70k£ for them, given MG's legal fees may not be included in that price (I can't see any indication either way)
The legal fees are not included.
They are probably very high. I'm not a lawyer but other similar cases have fees in the range of 150K to 300K.
It's a life changing amount of money. The stakes are very high for both sides. Honestly it's really sad that this happened and I am not sure anyone has come out happy.
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
where do we land on motherf!cker? Taken literally it's accusing someone of a specific depraved act, but it's also clearly a term of abuse. My guess (not a lawyer!) is that once a term becomes more associated with abuse the more you're protected. Hustler basically called Jerry Falwell a motherf!cker but attributed to him a specific act, which they highlighted was satire and not to be taken seriously. Hustler lost in a…
You can say "motherfucker" if you need to.
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#47Earlier 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.
The judge takes all of that into account when determining damages. The fee is based on an earlier lawsuit, with inflation added: > Mr Hamer asks for a single global sum to vindicate Dr Garrett’s reputation and compensate him for distress in relation to all the publications complained of. He proposed a range of comparator decisions for my consideration, in support of a submission that libel damages approaching £100,00…
> a dedicated hate page
Sheesh. It even has empty slots for thought crimes not yet found ...
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#48I had never heard of techrights before. It seems to have a lot of angry/nasty articles. There's a huge amount of paranoia and hatred towards big tech. A lot of personal attacks against individuals and his former employer. I find myself questioning whether the authors are entirely sane.
Can anyone confirm whether it is (or was?) really a respectable/serious free software site?
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
where do we land on motherf!cker? Taken literally it's accusing someone of a specific depraved act, but it's also clearly a term of abuse. My guess (not a lawyer!) is that once a term becomes more associated with abuse the more you're protected. Hustler basically called Jerry Falwell a motherf!cker but attributed to him a specific act, which they highlighted was satire and not to be taken seriously. Hustler lost in a…
You can say "motherfucker" if you need to.
Haha, I know, thanks :). I don't mind saying it... it's just such a raw word and I wanted people to focus on the substance without aggressively escalating the potty mouth in the thread.
Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
#50What was the harassment TR/TM was receiving and what was the libel they directed at MG? (juicier gossip please)
Dr Garrett is chiefly accused of an online campaign of material which is (variously) criminal, illegal or offensive. The criminal matters alleged include cybercrime, hate crime, blackmail, issuing threats of violence or death, and matters adjacent to terrorism. Other illegal matters alleged include defamation, harassment and online abuse. Offensive matters alleged include material that is variously racist, antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic or otherwise hateful or discriminatory, sexually incontinent, or drugs-related. Dr Garrett is alleged to have waged this campaign through the medium of IRC ‘sockpuppet’ accounts – accounts under pseudonymous user nicknames intended to be a vehicle for distributing material anonymously and deniably.
You can see the harassment they were recieving here. There was some pretty vile stuff directed at Rianne in particular.
https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/11/Garrett_Committing...