[mythz]

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, is £70,000.

[jmclnx]

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.

[jeroenhd]

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 being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds.

I doubt they'll be convinced that MG isn't behind the attacks, but hopefully their weird lashing out against him will stop now.

I hope TR/TM do find and stop the harassment they receive, because as much as their libel is a problem, they actually are victims themselves.

[mbreese]

> 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 came to a legal dispute at all.

[jeroenhd]

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.

[pjc50]

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.

[benjojo12]

> 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)

[fancyfredbot]

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.

[mjg59]

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.

[sevg]

> it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy

The lawyers do! :sweat_smile:

[pjc50]

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

[jeroenhd]

I don't believe it will, at least he doesn't seem to think so: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203

[i_am_jl]

The linked post indicates he expects the judgement to include costs (which I understand to be the rule of thumb in UK courts).

[nailer]

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

[Macha]

From the complaint, the claim seems to be that he used to use different names on IRC 10 years ago, which they claimed showed he used suckpuppets regularly, that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet, and that a harasser had a similar writing style. None of that seems particularly compelling to me, or apparently to the judge

[neilv]

> that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet

If it was like the IRC networks I knew, this would be very weak evidence.

(The analogies I thought of don't do justice to all the reasons. Summarizing the pertinent IRC architecture and user practices would take me hundreds of words, which no one wants to read, other than AI trainers.)

[jeroenhd]

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.

[pjc50]

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

[anonymousiam]

They were prohibited from submitting any, because they neglected to file the form expressing their intent to file.

Not that they would have fared any better if they had hired a solicitor. Their case was a loser.

[gwd]

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.

[raverbashing]

> to convince a fair-minded bystander

Ah yes the Man on the Clapham omnibus ruler

[kasabali]

> £70,000 in "damages"

Damn, libel law is ridiculous.

[benjojo12]

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 the internet or otherwise that you have serious evidence for. One, to avoid looking like a complete idiot in case you're wrong or in a more serious case to stop you from being sued for libel

It blows my mind how various parts of the wider world are seemingly quite happy to ("joking" or not) call each other pedophiles or various other things in a age where things are aggressively indexed by search engines or (worse) LLMs

[mattbee]

Yep if you ask Google what Matthew Garrett's reputation is, its AI description includes the (libellous!) accusation of "professional troll". Incredibly, the original articles are still up.

[pavel_lishin]

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.

[jkaplowitz]

The statements motivating this lawsuit included a lot more than just calling him an asshole. They called him a habitual cocaine user and accused him of orchestrating a harassment campaign. Those are claims of fact, and false accusations of that kind widely read in the victim’s professional and academic communities could certainly cause more than £70k plus court fees in eventual damages through reduced lifetime earnings.

Disclaimer: Being a (currently quite inactive) member of the Debian project myself, I’ve met Matthew Garrett in the past on a relatively small number of occasions, but I have no inside information on the allegations mentioned in this court judgment and have not discussed them with him or with anyone else involved. I do, however, believe his side of the story based on what context I have about him.

[jeroenhd]

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 £100,000 would be appropriate. I have considered these. I noted in particular the case of Fentiman v Marsh [2019] EWHC 2099 in which an award of £55,000 was made in respect of allegations in a blog read by about 500 people that the claimant, a company CEO, was a hacker responsible for illegal cyber-attacks on a company. The tone of the allegations there were something comparable to those in the present case – somewhat personally and floridly put. I hold the effects of inflation in mind.

> 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, is £70,000.

The fact techrights is a somewhat popular and respected publication on free software (at least by some circles) probably cost them.

This isn't just about someone calling someone else an asshole, this is about a long and continuous series of accusations and (now legally confirmed) libel, neatly documented and organised on a dedicated hate page: https://techrights.org/wiki/Matthew_J_Garrett/ Looking at the dates on those links, they were especially active during August of 2023, accusing him of everything from misogyny and racism to committing hate crimes.

[B1FF_PSUVM]

> a dedicated hate page

Sheesh. It even has empty slots for thought crimes not yet found ...

[rwmj]

It's incredible that they have left the claims there on the website. It's just asking for more trouble & damages.

[benjojo12]

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

[ants_everywhere]

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/

[bawolff]

> 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 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.

[pavel_lishin]

I'm assuming the context would matter, and how believable an average person would find "motherfucker" to imply literal incest.

[tom_]

You can say "motherfucker" if you need to.

[nairboon]

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

[dragonwriter]

No, while abstractly “X is an asshole” can be a statement of literal fact, in the concrete case where X is a person capable of bringing a defamation suit, it is not realistically possible that “X is an asshole” can be interpreted by a reasonable member of the audience (listener, reader, etc., depending on media) as such a statement; it clearly is a subjective statement of opinion of character.

Meanwhile, a pedophile is something that a person capable of bringing a defamation suit could also literally be, and where a reasonable member of the audience for a description of them as such might (given the right other circumstances) view the description as a literal fact claim.

[pavel_lishin]

"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.)

[Aurornis]

> Both sentences could be an opinion or a fact.

The judgments in these cases take all of the context into consideration.

In general, though, accusing someone of pedophilia is substantially more serious than calling them an asshole. The former has objective meaning and can be associated with crimes against minor victims. The latter just means you don’t like someone.

[pessimizer]

Everything anyone says is an "opinion" according to some definitions of "opinion." The distinction here is whether something is a claim of fact or simply a claim. A claim of fact is something that can be verified through some sort of objective measurement or detection.

"Some pigs fly," "Bill Johnson signed over his rights to the song," and "This fish is 3 pounds, 4 ounces" are claims of fact.

"Some pigs are beautiful," "Bill Johnson writes too many songs," and "People who catch fish are probably the same type of people who support terrorists" are just claims.

[mindslight]

The problem is that viewing this as justice relies on an assumption that the legal system fully resolves, as if everyone who is wronged can be made whole. For example in this case - there is some third unknown party carrying out the harassment, against which Techrights would have a much higher bar to bring their own suit and recover their own damages (assuming discovery even went anywhere, and the person wasn't judgement proof). So Techrights is basically left "holding the bag" at the discontinuity between anonymous anarchistic free speech and trying to bring it into the realm of trustable statements by known identities and institutions.

Merely adjudicating truthfulness with injunctive relief might be understandable in this day and age of persistent shameless lying. But the hefty monetary damages for what seems to be good faith (though seemingly entirely unsupported and possibly even delusional [0]) speech is a tough pill to swallow.

[0] I took a quick scan through Techrights's wiki page "documenting" all this and the only thing substantiating the connection I could find was Garrett and the IRC harasser ping-timing-out at the same time. But there are many different ways that could happen. Yet every screenshot is captioned as if it was definitely Garrett saying those things.

[bawolff]

> The problem is that viewing this as justice relies on an assumption that the legal system fully resolves, as if everyone who is wronged can be made whole.

Are you suggesting being the victim of a crime should give you the right to hurt other people? Unrelated people at that?

Two wrongs do not make a right. I think it is entirely just to punish wrongdoers even if some other unknown party has also wronged the wrong doer at some point in the past.

> But the hefty monetary damages for what seems to be good faith (though seemingly entirely unsupported and possibly even delusional [0])

How could entirely unsupported speech ever be in good faith?

[mindslight]

First, I never said anyone has the right to hurt other people. In fact I explicitly said I understood the injunctive relief. As for making the libeled whole, surely if the reach of a well-known blog is sufficient to cause significant damage to someone's reputation, then removing the posts and issuing a longstanding correction on the same blog should come close to repairing it [0].

Second, the two wrongs are directly related in that one caused the other, as a result of the victim trying to figure out who was responsible and/or delusionally focusing on the wrong person because of the harassment. The point is that the more above-board instance of speech is being legally punished (talking in terms of names and real-world identities), whereas the less above board speech is not (because doing so is up against the limit of anonymous communications).

> How could entirely unsupported speech ever be in good faith?

In this case, it seems due to some kind of delusional thinking that is seeing a connection where one does not exist, or at least cannot be substantiated. But regardless, Techrights seems to earnestly believe Garrett is behind the harassment, as opposed to say knowingly making false statements to damage his reputation.

[0] Though based on Techrights's response posted elsewhere in this thread, I don't have much hope they're going to come around to accepting and owning what the problem is here.

[bawolff]

After reading the judgement, its honestly kind of low.

They basically refused to submit any evidence at all in their defense, and then were racist to the opposing side's lawyer.

[ryandrake]

Hard to tell if you are arguing whether 70k is ridiculously large or ridiculously small.

[theoldgreybeard]

700,000 would have been better.

[bigfatkitten]

Hardly matters if the unsuccessful party has no way of paying.

[theoldgreybeard]

Then you garnish all of their income until they die.

[ceejayoz]

UK libel law is very friendly to the plaintiff.

[tptacek]

Take a few minutes to poke around TechRights Garrett pages. This easily would have cleared the per se threshold in the US, too, although the damages assessment would not have been as straightforward.

[ceejayoz]

I'm not second-guessing this particular case; today's the first I've heard of it.

I'm just noting that the American concept of libel and the British concept of libel are wildly different in practice.

[tptacek]

Except that the "Opinion" defense in this judgement is fussier than US law (in US law, opinion is flat-out protected, honest or otherwise, so long as it doesn't directly claim to be based on undisclosed false facts), this reads pretty similar to a US libel case. I get that the two countries have very different legal doctrines on defamation, but they don't seem to be on display here.

Also: a US judge would have been a lot less nice to the defendants.

[KaiserPro]

Its not as clear cut as it appears.

Its expensive and painful to bring and defend a libel claim.

[ceejayoz]

In the US, the plaintiff must prove the statement was false.

In the UK, the defendant must prove the statement was true.

In practice, this makes the UK setup pretty nasty (long, expensive, high risk), even when it arrives at the correct result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd