[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.

[ants_everywhere]

> 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.

[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.

[ants_everywhere]

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.

[cml123]

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.

[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.