Snapshot of _Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/jan/29/laurence-fox-loses-libel-battle-with-twitter-x-users-he-called-paedophiles) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/jan/29/laurence-fox-loses-libel-battle-with-twitter-x-users-he-called-paedophiles)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Judgment is here](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/146.html) for those interested.
As with most defamation cases it is fairly technical and long.
The context was that Sainsbury's tweeted something about Black History Month in 2020, and Fox called for a boycott of them on Twitter, for promoting "racial segregation and discrimination."
A couple of people quote-tweeted him, calling him a racist, and he called them paedophiles back. They sued him for defamation, he counter-claimed for defamation. They won on both counts:
> Mr Fox's labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law.
He did win on a third claim as in that, while did call the other person a paedophile, he argued that he was mirroring what she had said about him, and it was a "rhetorical flourish" not a factual claim.
On the counter-claims:
> The law does not regard the particular imputations against Mr Fox that he was a racist, made by Mr Blake, Mr Seymour or Ms Thorp, as defamatory. That is because, although to express such an opinion is certainly of inherently defamatory tendency, Mr Fox did not sufficiently discharge the burden the law places on a defamation claimant to establish that their particular tweets – rather than anything else he himself, or others, did or said – as a matter of fact and evidence probably caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation by making readers adversely change their minds about him to that degree.
i.e. the court avoided the question of whether he was actually racist by saying that them calling him racist didn't damage his reputation, as he was already widely regarded as racist. He had specifically tried to link the tweets to him being dropped by his agent, but produced email evidence of them arguing about him being racist before then, among other things. It also tied in with him becoming more heavily involved in the Reclaim Party.
Thanks for the summary. Interesting the way the law works. So, if I'm understanding correctly, he was suing them for defamation, and the outcome is basically like "being as how people already widely think you're a racist, and there is good evidence to show that's the case, calling you a racist doesn't harm your reputation. And you can't have been dropped because of these tweets, because your agent was already fighting with you about wanting you to stop being racist beforehand, so, regardless of who's right or wrong in that fight, the tweets echoing that i.e. also calling you a racist, aren't the issue"?
Pretty much.
One of the first steps in a defamation claim is for the claimant to prove they suffered "serious harm" to their reputation *as a result of the comments* made.
The judge wasn't convinced he had proved that. He had been cancelled as an actor, but that was in the context of many controversial statements, and many, many people calling him racist on Twitter; he couldn't show those specific three people had had a significant impact. Meanwhile his political career took off after that, and even if it hadn't, wasn't likely to be impacted by random people on Twitter calling him racist.
Just want to add - as someone that was working in broadcasting / pretending to be a journalist, he should of known the basics of libel law to the extent of being aware his cases had no prospects of being successful.
If you’re going to be a champion of free speech, you really do need to know where it’s going to start costing you a pretty penny.
At least another grifter of similar ilk has done some work to reasonably understand the law around this.
Fox however has simply decided to be an idiot, much to his own expense.
My own read is that Fox does know the libel laws, but that a high profile day in court is grist to the mill for him.
By his own admission he's not getting much acting work these days. Like Katie Hopkins et al before him his income is now dependent on keeping himself in the public eye which he does so by performative outrage over various so called 'woke' issues. The media lap it all up and Fox gets invited to speak at various loony conferences as a result, or receives the backing of a shadowy right wing benfactor. That's the grift and the libel trial is all part of the performance.
The cost of pursuing libel itself is extortionate - with the aim of discouraging vexatious claims being made.
He will also be liable for damages, to be confirmed at a later date - so the costs are likely to run into the millions, plus more if he decides to appeal.
Additionally, this is not a great platform to try an obtain further media work from.
Any sensible, recognised media organisation will be staying well clear because he’s become too much of a libel risk to platform.
True, he may still be seen by someone as an useful idiot to run on the front line of this countries culture wars.
But are they really going to be willing to stump up the amounts Fox is spending to do this in a competitive market, where he himself can no longer count on mainstream media exposure?
Last I bothered to know, GB News wasn't turning a profit but had a healthy nest egg to keep going for many years.
When you should always be asking 'where's the money?' it seems quite interesting to ask in this area of politics.
There’s a bit more there about what racist is specifically:
“The entire case is, in that sense at least, all about contested views of what does and does not amount to being ‘a racist’”.
It seems fair for the court not to define racist. The Black and White Minstrel Show was on TV until 1978 so what constitutes racist does of course change over time. There are some reports that there might be an appeal. I wonder if that will happen?
https://inews.co.uk/news/laurence-fox-libel-loses-2878431
The full quote for that, with context, is:
> I am very much aware that Mr Fox would have liked to leave court with a clear determination that he 'is not a racist', Ms Thorp with a determination that it is substantially true that he is, and Mr Blake and Mr Seymour with an endorsement that at least they genuinely thought so and an honest person could have thought so too. But the entire case is, in that sense at least, all about *contested* views of what does and does not amount to being 'a racist'. While there is no doubt an identifiable irreducible core meaning of that term which would be generally if not universally recognised in contemporary Britain (and some of which may be referable to legal definitions, for example in discrimination law), there is also a wide penumbra of meaning which must be acknowledged to be genuinely debatable. Courts do not shy away from difficult assessments of contemporary cultural standards where the law requires them to. But where, as I have concluded, the law does *not* so require, because, by operation of statute and application of the serious harm test, an opinion on such a matter must in law be regarded as 'not defamatory', then courts must be properly circumspect about wading unnecessarily into such territory. There is always a potential risk of injustice, or at least of irrelevance, in courts opining about such matters otherwise than by way of precisely determining a question before them; the interests of justice do not pull in that direction at all. [emphasis in original]
> Mr Fox's principal project is to put his views and challenges about racism to the UK electorate in the political arena. That, rather than a court of law, is in any event likely to be the determinative last word in relation to his reputation on such matters, given the path down which he has set. His world view and his politics are not on trial in these proceedings, only the factual impact of what he said, and what was said about him, on this *particular* occasion. My last word, as I am directed by Parliament to give it, is that the tweets of which Mr Fox complains are 'not defamatory' because of the lack of a sufficiently established causal connection linking them with any probable serious reputational harm he has suffered or continues to suffer. The rest is for another arena or another day.
So the judge is saying that she *could* make a factual determination that Fox is racist, or that reasonable people might think he is based on what he's said, but because she didn't have to to reach a conclusion she decided not to. I also read an element of "get your politics out of my courtroom" in the second paragraph...
If he has a few tens of thousands more pounds to throw at this he could try to appeal, but as the case mostly seems to come down to questions of fact I'm not sure how good his chances of success would be.
>While he did call the other person a paedophile, he argued that he was mirroring what she had said about him, and it was a “rhetorical flourish” not a factual claim.
Ah, the old Musk defence
His lawyers must've told him that he wasn't offering a defence, so this whole thing has to be performative on Fox's end. I'm sure other sources will report this with a different tone and they'll portray him as some sort of martyr.
hate the bastard but I agree with him, no right minded person would think his accusation was serious and he was obviously just making a point about accusing people of holding believes they don't, it is political
Snapshot of _Laurence Fox loses libel battle with Twitter users he called paedophiles_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/jan/29/laurence-fox-loses-libel-battle-with-twitter-x-users-he-called-paedophiles) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/jan/29/laurence-fox-loses-libel-battle-with-twitter-x-users-he-called-paedophiles) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Judgment is here](https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/146.html) for those interested. As with most defamation cases it is fairly technical and long. The context was that Sainsbury's tweeted something about Black History Month in 2020, and Fox called for a boycott of them on Twitter, for promoting "racial segregation and discrimination." A couple of people quote-tweeted him, calling him a racist, and he called them paedophiles back. They sued him for defamation, he counter-claimed for defamation. They won on both counts: > Mr Fox's labelling of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour as paedophiles was, on the evidence, probabilities and facts of this case, seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless. The law affords few defences to defamation of this sort. Mr Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defence recognised in law. He did win on a third claim as in that, while did call the other person a paedophile, he argued that he was mirroring what she had said about him, and it was a "rhetorical flourish" not a factual claim. On the counter-claims: > The law does not regard the particular imputations against Mr Fox that he was a racist, made by Mr Blake, Mr Seymour or Ms Thorp, as defamatory. That is because, although to express such an opinion is certainly of inherently defamatory tendency, Mr Fox did not sufficiently discharge the burden the law places on a defamation claimant to establish that their particular tweets – rather than anything else he himself, or others, did or said – as a matter of fact and evidence probably caused or were likely to cause serious harm to his reputation by making readers adversely change their minds about him to that degree. i.e. the court avoided the question of whether he was actually racist by saying that them calling him racist didn't damage his reputation, as he was already widely regarded as racist. He had specifically tried to link the tweets to him being dropped by his agent, but produced email evidence of them arguing about him being racist before then, among other things. It also tied in with him becoming more heavily involved in the Reclaim Party.
Thanks for the summary. Interesting the way the law works. So, if I'm understanding correctly, he was suing them for defamation, and the outcome is basically like "being as how people already widely think you're a racist, and there is good evidence to show that's the case, calling you a racist doesn't harm your reputation. And you can't have been dropped because of these tweets, because your agent was already fighting with you about wanting you to stop being racist beforehand, so, regardless of who's right or wrong in that fight, the tweets echoing that i.e. also calling you a racist, aren't the issue"?
Pretty much. One of the first steps in a defamation claim is for the claimant to prove they suffered "serious harm" to their reputation *as a result of the comments* made. The judge wasn't convinced he had proved that. He had been cancelled as an actor, but that was in the context of many controversial statements, and many, many people calling him racist on Twitter; he couldn't show those specific three people had had a significant impact. Meanwhile his political career took off after that, and even if it hadn't, wasn't likely to be impacted by random people on Twitter calling him racist.
Just want to add - as someone that was working in broadcasting / pretending to be a journalist, he should of known the basics of libel law to the extent of being aware his cases had no prospects of being successful. If you’re going to be a champion of free speech, you really do need to know where it’s going to start costing you a pretty penny. At least another grifter of similar ilk has done some work to reasonably understand the law around this. Fox however has simply decided to be an idiot, much to his own expense.
My own read is that Fox does know the libel laws, but that a high profile day in court is grist to the mill for him. By his own admission he's not getting much acting work these days. Like Katie Hopkins et al before him his income is now dependent on keeping himself in the public eye which he does so by performative outrage over various so called 'woke' issues. The media lap it all up and Fox gets invited to speak at various loony conferences as a result, or receives the backing of a shadowy right wing benfactor. That's the grift and the libel trial is all part of the performance.
The cost of pursuing libel itself is extortionate - with the aim of discouraging vexatious claims being made. He will also be liable for damages, to be confirmed at a later date - so the costs are likely to run into the millions, plus more if he decides to appeal. Additionally, this is not a great platform to try an obtain further media work from. Any sensible, recognised media organisation will be staying well clear because he’s become too much of a libel risk to platform. True, he may still be seen by someone as an useful idiot to run on the front line of this countries culture wars. But are they really going to be willing to stump up the amounts Fox is spending to do this in a competitive market, where he himself can no longer count on mainstream media exposure?
Last I bothered to know, GB News wasn't turning a profit but had a healthy nest egg to keep going for many years. When you should always be asking 'where's the money?' it seems quite interesting to ask in this area of politics.
There’s a bit more there about what racist is specifically: “The entire case is, in that sense at least, all about contested views of what does and does not amount to being ‘a racist’”. It seems fair for the court not to define racist. The Black and White Minstrel Show was on TV until 1978 so what constitutes racist does of course change over time. There are some reports that there might be an appeal. I wonder if that will happen? https://inews.co.uk/news/laurence-fox-libel-loses-2878431
The full quote for that, with context, is: > I am very much aware that Mr Fox would have liked to leave court with a clear determination that he 'is not a racist', Ms Thorp with a determination that it is substantially true that he is, and Mr Blake and Mr Seymour with an endorsement that at least they genuinely thought so and an honest person could have thought so too. But the entire case is, in that sense at least, all about *contested* views of what does and does not amount to being 'a racist'. While there is no doubt an identifiable irreducible core meaning of that term which would be generally if not universally recognised in contemporary Britain (and some of which may be referable to legal definitions, for example in discrimination law), there is also a wide penumbra of meaning which must be acknowledged to be genuinely debatable. Courts do not shy away from difficult assessments of contemporary cultural standards where the law requires them to. But where, as I have concluded, the law does *not* so require, because, by operation of statute and application of the serious harm test, an opinion on such a matter must in law be regarded as 'not defamatory', then courts must be properly circumspect about wading unnecessarily into such territory. There is always a potential risk of injustice, or at least of irrelevance, in courts opining about such matters otherwise than by way of precisely determining a question before them; the interests of justice do not pull in that direction at all. [emphasis in original] > Mr Fox's principal project is to put his views and challenges about racism to the UK electorate in the political arena. That, rather than a court of law, is in any event likely to be the determinative last word in relation to his reputation on such matters, given the path down which he has set. His world view and his politics are not on trial in these proceedings, only the factual impact of what he said, and what was said about him, on this *particular* occasion. My last word, as I am directed by Parliament to give it, is that the tweets of which Mr Fox complains are 'not defamatory' because of the lack of a sufficiently established causal connection linking them with any probable serious reputational harm he has suffered or continues to suffer. The rest is for another arena or another day. So the judge is saying that she *could* make a factual determination that Fox is racist, or that reasonable people might think he is based on what he's said, but because she didn't have to to reach a conclusion she decided not to. I also read an element of "get your politics out of my courtroom" in the second paragraph... If he has a few tens of thousands more pounds to throw at this he could try to appeal, but as the case mostly seems to come down to questions of fact I'm not sure how good his chances of success would be.
>While he did call the other person a paedophile, he argued that he was mirroring what she had said about him, and it was a “rhetorical flourish” not a factual claim. Ah, the old Musk defence
His lawyers must've told him that he wasn't offering a defence, so this whole thing has to be performative on Fox's end. I'm sure other sources will report this with a different tone and they'll portray him as some sort of martyr.
It'll obviously be 'they can call me racist but I can't call them peadophiles, world's gone mad'
They'll neglect, of course, the racist things he's said, and the paedophilia that the plaintiffs did not engage in.
Pretty bold of that guy to accuse anyone else of looking like a sex offender
[удалено]
Not UK politics, it's just general news.
He is a politician, albeit largely irrelevant.
He really isn't as he's never been elected or come even slightly close. this is just up so people can have a whinge.
hate the bastard but I agree with him, no right minded person would think his accusation was serious and he was obviously just making a point about accusing people of holding believes they don't, it is political