I've been seeing people saying that because JK Rowling routinely uses UK libel law to silence critics, Gaiman's failure to immediately do so shows his guilt.
That's incorrect, and I think it's worth talking about why - it goes to important facets of defamation law abuse.
🧵⚖️
At the outset, I want to make it clear that I think the allegations against Gaiman are serious, credible, and very disturbing. Nothing in this thread should be taken as suggesting that I think otherwise.
I'm purely highlighting some points about what defamation law can/can't do.
It's rarely advisable for someone in Gaiman's position to bring a defamation action - because he, *unlike JKR*, is in a position where protecting his reputation matters.
Because the thing about defamation cases is that filing one is very unlikely to do anything significant to help your reputation.
From a tactical stand point…you wouldn’t. The problem with just piping up with “I didn’t say that” is that it won’t actually substantively change anyone’s mind…but it can turn more people against you for looking too defensive. It is also hard to prove a negative in this case.
Now if you are building a legal case behind the scenes it is also when a crisis Comms person would advise you just lay low and stay quiet, so you don’t accidentally make shit worse.
And the lawyers would be in the crisis comms person's debt.
That said, if there was ever any relationship of any kind ever, this is highly unlikely to be a case you want to bring. At all. And legal would appreciate crisis comms' help conveying that to the client. ;)
Defamation is a red herring. It's only the reason why the podcast wouldn't make the quotes up. The podcast has him admitting career destroying things. I'm pretty sure you would want to put out a strongly worded statement that you didn't admit to that stuff if you didn't actually do so
Jeff.
The thing you think is obvious and intuitive is not something that professionals who make their living working in this area think is obvious and intuitive.
That's just an appeal to authority. I have no idea who that person even is! What you had her talking about wasn't even the issue anyway. It wasn't that he admitted to a relationship with her. He admitted to specific sexual acts that will end his career. if he didn't, he has to say so!
I told you: She's a professional crisis communications specialist. I've worked with her in a situation requiring both legal and crisis comms before. She's a genuine expert.
You want to handwave that as "appeal to authority" and claim your vibes are just as good, go for it. I could use the laugh.
She hasn't even listened to them. She has no idea what she's talking about! I've been arguing on the internet for 30 years, and I'm not sure I've ever seen a more brazen attempt to get out of a corner
Wait. Your…qualifications in this are you have been arguing on the internet for 30 years? And you are this bad at it? I really hope this isn’t your day job.
Cool. So. First of all I wasn’t backing down on what I (an expert in crisis management, with the actual background for it) was saying.
I have no skin in this entertaining thread but that ALT text fits way too many flat Earth anti-vaxxers. "You experts aren't really experts, I saw a meme that disproves your area of expertise"
Let me state my position first, since I'm not sure it's getting across:
Gaiman made explicit admissions of sexual acts to the podcast. If Neil Gaiman disputed making those admissions, he would have already done so
An example would be the podcast says that Gaiman admits he got naked into a bath with a 23 year old(his kids nanny), but that he claims he only made out and cuddled, not stuck a finger up her ass. If hadn't made that admission, he would have said something by now
Okay. I am going to ask you to take — not a leap of faith, so much, but a hop of faith. I’m going to ask you a bunch of questions that are going to seem like pointless nitpicking, but I promise they are not, and I will explain why they aren’t at the end. (This is NOT about defending Gaiman.)
1. Exactly what did he admit?
2. When you say he admitted it “to the podcast,” what do you understand that to mean?
3. What specific facts or statements are you basing your answers to 1. and 2. on?
She was talking about an appropriate approach to the situation.
She didn’t need to listen to the podcast.
The general approach to crisis comms is her area of expertise so her initial thinking on the matter is quite relevant.
Hi — I’m coming into this partway through, but I read up and down as many branches as I can find and I’m still unclear on this so I’m going to just ask. What’s your fundamental thesis here?
Oh, good. I've got a distressingly early start for a Saturday, so I'm gonna tap out.
As far as I can tell, the thesis is: this is really bad so if it's false he needs to say so because reasons.
Aye sir, @kathryntewson.bsky.social has the watch. I too stand relieved as I have a stupid early morning too.
Going to be interesting to check this over coffee at the crack of dawn
Second- listening to the podcast does not change what I was explaining as tactics and methodologies. To be frank from the post I was responding to…listening to it will probably just reinforce what I said.
But please cherry pick posts to your 30 yr internet expertise delight
You're suggesting that your experience of arguing on the internet for 30 years is somehow more vital than a crisis comms expert talking about how one might best respond in a crisis. Are you positive this doesn't make you look, well, like some kind of common rube?
If you've been arguing for 30 years and this is the worst corner escape you've seen, you've literally never cornered anybody. Skill issue.
Reading upwards a bit further, and, yeah, that tracks.
Wait a minute Mr Logical Fallacies...
When you tell your opponent you've been arguing on the internet for 30 years... with no other info, and you think that's not an appeal to authority/experience, but an actual subject matter expert talking about that very subject is, you're losing the argument.
I've been arguing on the Internet longer than you have, but I'm not sure my tenure is what makes the difference between you and me. I think it's that I learned how to discern when real experience is talking. I wish you had too.
