Laurence Fox

100% true. You’ll be amazed at how often actors (or panel show guests, stand-up
comedians, etc.) are chosen based on who turns up on time and is polite to the producers.
it's one of the things i've seen mentioned so many times on commentaries and with actors who had rough spells, same as you say with the likes of panel show guests.
The likes of panel shows especially if you get a rep as being a pain it rapidly spreads because there are only so many companies making them, and hiring the guests.

If you are pleasant to work with and punctual most productions won't care much about your personal politics or religion, but i've heard of so many tales of someone who was well paid in a good role and let it get to their head and they became unpleasant to the "staff" especially lower level actors or production assistants. Those production assistants often end up as more influential after a few years and remember the actors that treated them ok, and definitely remember those that treated them badly.
I wondered a bit about Sorbo, then read how he behaved and how he basically killed off a fairly expensive show because he demanded major changes, meanwhile the actress from the spin off of his previous vehicle seems to have kept working in good shows whilst he's stuck doing z list stuff (IIRC something similar happened with Dean Cain after Superman, whilst his Lois has done fairly well).
 
People shouldn't be allowed to go around making baseless accusations of paedophilia. It not only demeans the serious subject it brings communication down to the sewer level.

As for racism. Fox, like most people, hasn't followed the history and court cases of what is racism in court. I know of a case prosecuted against a man who drew stick drawings of people on an island with a boat in the distance. The drawing was considered racist. The whole issue is subjective, and depends who says it.
 
He’s interestng

Lol

No he’s not, he’s not got the intelligence to pull off his edginess, he’s not funny, he’s not talented, he has zero redeeming qualities and is only famous because of the family he was born into.

At one point he had an issue seeing his own kids, and I believe a coke habbit. He’s rotten.
 
People shouldn't be allowed to go around making baseless accusations of paedophilia. It not only demeans the serious subject it brings communication down to the sewer level.

As for racism. Fox, like most people, hasn't followed the history and court cases of what is racism in court. I know of a case prosecuted against a man who drew stick drawings of people on an island with a boat in the distance. The drawing was considered racist. The whole issue is subjective, and depends who says it.
I have not followed the case but read an opinion piece this morning that suggested he had word for word repeated the unsubstantiated claim of racism against himself with a reciprocal unsubstantiated claim of paedophilia against his accuser. Taking that at face value it is clearly not a genuine accusation but rather rebuttal highlighting the nature of unsubstantiated claims.
 
There's plenty of evidence to justify people's belief that he's racist.
Certainly the court accepted that calling someone racist isn't defamation but calling a someone pedo is, even when you make an effort to show it wasn't a genuine accusation. But it's Lawrence Fox, so we should wave through any worrying implications for free speech because the right person is getting stiffed.
 
Certainly the court accepted that calling someone racist isn't defamation but calling a someone pedo is, even when you make an effort to show it wasn't a genuine accusation. But it's Lawrence Fox, so we should wave through any worrying implications for free speech because the right person is getting stiffed.
This isn't the oppression we're looking for. Move along, move along.
 
Certainly the court accepted that calling someone racist isn't defamation but calling a someone pedo is, even when you make an effort to show it wasn't a genuine accusation. But it's Lawrence Fox, so we should wave through any worrying implications for free speech because the right person is getting stiffed.

I mean, there is a reason we have both freedom of speech and defamation...

Calling someone a paedo when you have a public platform is really really ******* stupid. Thats the sort of thing that can really impact someones life. Especially when it comes to the sort of mouth breathers that actually take what Fox says seriously.

I think you or your news source had misread the judgment. Fox failed to prove that being called racist had caused him reputation harm.

"Sir, you do not have a reputation that can be harmed at this point. Most people think you a complete pillock"
 
Last edited:
Certainly the court accepted that calling someone racist isn't defamation but calling a someone pedo is, even when you make an effort to show it wasn't a genuine accusation. But it's Lawrence Fox, so we should wave through any worrying implications for free speech because the right person is getting stiffed.
I think the position of the court was that:

1) Calling someone a paedophile is far worse than calling them a racist. Apparently the judge commented that even prisoners hate paedophiles.

2) Calling someone a racist can be defamation. But in the case of Laurence Fox his reputation is so low that calling him that name has not caused any further damage to his reputation. Damages for defamation can only be awarded if the statement was made, it is untrue and caused damage to the persons reputation.
 
Last edited:
Certainly the court accepted that calling someone racist isn't defamation but calling a someone pedo is, even when you make an effort to show it wasn't a genuine accusation. But it's Lawrence Fox, so we should wave through any worrying implications for free speech because the right person is getting stiffed.
****libs can call you whatever they want with impunity, and if you say anything back they go snivel to authority. Reminds me of a certain forum.
 
Back
Top Bottom