Very Very Common Mike Dunford: That's the difference that I think is easily missed here. JKR doesn't care about her reputation. She wants to shut up people and hurt them. Her threats don't do anything to keep her from trashing her own legacy and reputation; anything but.

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.

In the social media age, filing a defamation action against the source of a story might shut down that source. But it doesn't stop the story. It fuels it. People will post copies elsewhere just to make a point. There will be transcripts, and quotes, and chatter. And none of that goes away.

Filing a defamation action might give some ammo to your defenders. There might be a few people around the edges who find it persuasive. But it's not going to move the needle at all for most people, and it's going to provide new legs to the story.

Now, maybe winning a defamation action has a different effect. But guess what? That takes years and by the time it happens - *IF* it happens at all - nobody cares. It's just going to re-up a story from literally years ago. That's not going to do a ton to rehab your rep then, and it does nothing now.

Even *IF* every word in the allegations is false and can be proven false (I don't expect that to happen here, to put it mildly), it's generally inadvisable to run to the courthouse. Defamation law can provide compensation for harm to your reputation. It doesn't fix the harm.

But, you ask, what about she-who-shall-not-be-named? She threatens defamation actions all the time, and it works. And she does, and it does. Because JKR is vindictive, wants to hurt people who anger her, has the money to do it, and doesn't really give a damn about her reputation.

That's the difference that I think is easily missed here. JKR doesn't care about her reputation. She wants to shut up people and hurt them. Her threats don't do anything to keep her from trashing her own legacy and reputation; anything but.

She's using - abusing - defamation law for purposes that have very little to do with either protecting her reputation or compensating her for harm to her reputation. She's just vindicating her own sense of might and righteousness. What she does works. It just doesn't work to protect her rep.

Ultimately, defamation law is a tool. Like many tools, it's subject to abuse. And, like many tools, it's important to know what the tool can and can't do. One of the things it can't do is prevent harm to your reputation. Trying to use it that way is rarely going to end well.

So when I see Gaiman not rushing to file suit against Tortoise, I don't find that to be indicative of anything about the underlying facts. It's a reasonable course no matter the truth of the allegations. Which, again, are very credible. Just not for that reason. /fin

What is throwing me the most in these discussions is the speed at which people think a suit can be filed. Do you have even a rough estimate of how long it takes to file a suit in a case like this?

It depends. *ducks* Seriously, though - it depends on a lot of things, including how much of a premium you're putting on solid factual accuracy, etc. I think we could do it in 1-2 days if absolutely necessary. But in that case I'd want someone who'd slept to review before filing.

I should add: For a value of "we could do it" that involves a case we'd take.

That's if the whole team, more or less, was after it. A day is *ripping* for a complaint. That's all hands on deck.

Yeah, you don't file a suit until all of your ducks are in a row. I strongly suspect the reason we haven't heard anything from Neil is because he's cataloguing his ducks and making sure he knows what he's got.

The way he handled trolls on tumblr makes me thing he's a very considered man, and I suspect he's doing a lot of considering right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he's in the process of finding the woman involved, and seeing if she actually has a complaint first.

Also over a holiday week... I work in the legal industry, and I can tell you that nothing much has been going on this week.

It’s a holiday in the US and Canada, but I don’t think it is in the UK (although election?) or NZ.

I think they're used to blowhards THREATENING lawsuits at the drop of a hat, and assuming that if the suit has been threatened, it could be implemented just as easily.

FWIW, I think all the distinctions you made, and the explanation you gave was very clear. I know that others mileage may vary, it so often does, but I do think you explained it as well as anyone could.

ALSO JKR only uses it against "poor" people. She's a bully trying to bully "weaker" people into silence. Neil would have to run a case against someone who can actually afford lawyers and a lawsuit. And you can ask people like Vic Mignogna how this turns out.

I have no idea what Tortoise's funding situation looks like. But given average up-front litigation costs, I would not assume that they have the money.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

Can James Harding’s Tortoise be more than a rich person’s club? | Emily Bellwww.theguardian.com High-profile editors are on board with the venture, but it feels like an escape, not a solution, to journalism’s problems, says Guardian columnist Emily Bell

Yeah, you notice she's not trying to sue David Tennant.

Or Daniel Ratcliffe. Or any other celebrity/News outlet

The best thing he can do now -- regardless of the *truth* -- is to be publicly quiet. Oh, and probably hire a publicist, if he doesn't already have one.

He probably needs a crisis PR specialist, although watching a lot of crash-and-burns by people and corporations over the years, the people who most need crisis PR are always the least likely to think that they need it. Instead they keep digging the hole deeper.

The fact that he hasn't commented publicly (that I've seen) gives him some credit for intelligence, or for hiring someone with the correct skills. We shall see. I currently have no Gaiman books queued up, and I won't be adding any for a while.

I keep forgetting how bad the UK libel system is. It reminds me of that weird conservative bloke on GB News who begged his followers to fund his libel case against a union rep when he she told him off for bullying women on a train.

Great thread, very informative. Thank you.

Is the law actually good for anything? Or is it one of those things where its presence promotes good behaviour, even if every actual use of it is either abusive or counterproductive?

Post