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

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#91

Post by ants_everywhere »

bawolff wrote: post #87
ants_everywhere wrote: post #42

Earlier 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…

> 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. Computer people have this weird notion that courts are like a computer program. If x == "foo" then punishment. That's not how it works. The use of any specific word does…

> The use of any specific word does not determine in and of itself if something is an assertion of fact or an assertion of opinion. It depends on how you're using the word.

Yes that's the point I'm making. The entire thread is about which words you can get sued over libel for, which isn't how it works.

> Computer people have this weird notion that courts are like a computer program. If x == "foo" then punishment.

This seems unnecessarily insulting, especially since your comment is just a repeat of mine with the relevant details removed.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#94

Post by cml123 »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #49
tom_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's interesting how differently people perceive it. Motherfucker is something I'd have called a parent in a card game if they bested me, or an exclamation said aloud from dropping a wallet while walking. Very little significance to it.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#95

Post by pjc50 »

mjg59 wrote: post #58
fancyfredbot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My fees came to about 260K GBP so far - while it's likely I'll be awarded some percentage of that, that doesn't mean I'll actually see any of it. As you say, it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy.

Ouch. I hope this is the end of this difficult experience for you :(

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#96

Post by gwd »

jmclnx wrote: post #7
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,…

Thanks, I had noticed Techrights had it out for MG, but I never understood why. I still do not know the reason for TR to go after him.

From the ruling:

> 69. It is plain that the onslaught of sockpuppet trolling to which Mrs Schestowitz in particular was subjected was a truly appalling experience – the very antithesis of everything Tuxmachines and Techrights stands for in the free software community. There is not the slightest suggestion that either Dr or Mrs Schestowitz did anything to invite or deserve it. They are both clearly and justifiably angered, dismayed, distressed and hurt by it.

> 71. It is also plain enough that Dr and Mrs Schestowitz have found it entirely straightforward to convince themselves that Dr Garrett was behind the trolling. But the task they have given themselves in pleading the truth defence in defamation proceedings is to establish or prove, on the balance of probabilities, that that is objectively true. And they have made that exceptionally difficult for themselves by advancing no evidence for it.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#97

Post by fancyfredbot »

parl_match wrote: post #86
fancyfredbot wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Example of real solid reporting?

I don't think I will, thank you. Feel free to Google it.

I was slightly confused by that response but after trying (and failing) to discover any solid reporting by googling myself I at least understand reticence to condone anything on that site.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#98

Post by em-bee »

fancyfredbot wrote: post #97
parl_match wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I will, thank you. Feel free to Google it.

I was slightly confused by that response but after trying (and failing) to discover any solid reporting by googling myself I at least understand reticence to condone anything on that site.

one thing that i do find worth condoning is his staunch support for RMS.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#99

Post by sevensor »

nikanj wrote: post #61
mjg59 wrote: post #52

The final order implementing the judgement isn't out yet so I'm not going to go into too much detail here as yet, but there's additional publicly available information I can share: The original claim: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Claims.pdf The defence and counterclaim: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Defence_Counterclaim.pdf The associated schedule of harassment: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Schedule.pdf Th…

Do lawsuits ever really end, or do the parties just run out of money? Isn’t the SCO v. Linux thing still shambling on in some court?

I think Jarndyce v Jarndyce is still going as well.

Re: Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor

#100

Post by tzs »

> Fourth, both websites are well-established. It is conspicuous that each has been active over two decades; that is a significant marker in the field. Dr Garrett’s evidence is that they are serious, sought-after, well-regarded, popular and trusted in the anglophone free software community, including for news, campaigning and educational content. Neither Dr nor Mrs Schestowitz suggested otherwise.

When did techrights.org become well respected and trusted!?

Last time I looked at it a few years ago it was like it had always been. Basically what you'd get if idiots like the QAnon people had directed their attention to free software instead of politics.

Post reply on HN