Laurence Fox

[hurfdurf]

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.

Calling someone racist who is a racist isn’t defamation. If he called someone a pedophile who was a pedophile he wouldn't have any concerns.

It was a genuine accusation at the time, he cowardly walked it back to try and get away with it. The fact you can’t understand these basic things is very concerning and I don’t think you should be posting.

 

[robfosters]

Calling someone racist who is a racist isn’t defamation. If he called someone a pedophile who was a pedophile he wouldn't have any concerns.

It was a genuine accusation at the time, he cowardly walked it back to try and get away with it. The fact you can’t understand these basic things is very concerning and I don’t think you should be posting.

Not your place to tell people if they should be posting or not

 

[Zefan]

It was a genuine accusation at the time, he cowardly walked it back to try and get away with it.

This is absolutely not true. He was quite public about it being a "if you can make baseless remarks, so can I, see how you like it" thing, a tool to expose the hypocrisy of it.

The fact you can’t understand these basic things is very concerning and I don’t think you should be posting.

 

[Pudney]

This is absolutely not true. He was quite public about it being a "if you can make baseless remarks, so can I, see how you like it" thing, a tool to expose the hypocrisy of it.

The fact you can’t understand these basic things is very concerning and I don’t think you should be posting.

He went too far with his response, and a response to a comment (calling someone racist in a “spirited debate”) which he himself had done.

It’s telling his legal defence to the comment was incredibly weak, in fact the judge commented that his defence may have had some merit if he had simply accused the supermarket of being racist.

Edit: in fact the judgement has incredibly strong wording for a legal judgement, it was “startling” he didn’t produce any witness evidence of the alleged harm done, his defence was “hopeless” given the undisputed facts of the case. Who goes into a case like this and doesn’t produce evidence or challenge important facts that underpin their defence?!

 

[hurfdurf]

This is absolutely not true. He was quite public about it being a "if you can make baseless remarks, so can I, see how you like it" thing, a tool to expose the hypocrisy of it.

The fact you can’t understand these basic things is very concerning and I don’t think you should be posting.

Source?

Because at the time from watching it was much more that he was baiting the gay = pedophile trope, I didn’t see him mention anything about baseless remarks until he had to defend it.

I do understand it so am glad you approve and appreciate my posting, I just don’t think that’s what happened. (And neither did the judge)

 

[hurfdurf]

Not your place to tell people if they should be posting or not

Disagree, please don’t question me, otherwise you’ll get a yellow card.

 

[Zefan]

Source?

Here's a quickly googled source for my point, from back closer to the time in 2021. I'll have a look for more from October 2020 but I'm sure there are more if you look:

Laurence Fox says 'paedophile' is a 'meaningless insult'

The actor is being sued by Ru Paul's Drag Race UK star Crystal, Coronation Street actress Nicola Thorp and deputy chair of Stonewall, Simon Blake.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Because at the time from watching it was much more that he was baiting the gay = pedophile trope, I didn’t see him mention anything about baseless remarks until he had to defend it.

Source?

Because at the time from watching it was much more that he was using it as an obviously baseless remark in response to theirs, I didn't see him mention anything about "the gay = paedophile trope" (whatever that is ) .

 

[the shadow]

With all the money he earned his house should have been paid off years ago

 

[hurfdurf]

Here's a quickly googled source for my point, from back closer to the time in 2021. I'll have a look for more from October 2020 but I'm sure there are more if you look:

Laurence Fox says 'paedophile' is a 'meaningless insult'

The actor is being sued by Ru Paul's Drag Race UK star Crystal, Coronation Street actress Nicola Thorp and deputy chair of Stonewall, Simon Blake.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Source?

Because at the time from watching it was much more that he was using it as an obviously baseless remark in response to theirs, I didn't see him mention anything about "the gay = paedophile trope" (whatever that is ) .

Source: The tweets themselves, that he made, at the time, contained no context.

I said he didn’t say anything at the time, only afterwards, you soured something that is….. significantly afterwards.

He didn’t start claiming that he wasn’t serious and defending them as an example of a baseless claim until after he was immediately called out and then copy and pasted another tweet using pedophile as an insult again. At that point, the damage of defamation was done.

I’ve demonstrated this to you quite quickly so you can understand, but it was also demonstrated in court to a much more in depth degree if you would like to look into it more.

Also, it’s a bit odd that someone who is demonstrably a racist, is trying to claim that being called racist is meaningless.

You don’t know what a trope is?

“a significant or recurrent theme; a motif.“

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751995630128439621

Crystal, one of the winners over the racist Fox, explains it in her victory statement.

 

[hurfdurf]

With all the money he earned his house should have been paid off years ago

It all went up his nose. Guy used to get bumped by his supplier regularly but was too much of a wimp to ever do anything, couldn’t get a different dealer because he was not about that life, and too much of a coke head to stop buying.

 

[JUMPURS]

Here's a quickly googled source for my point, from back closer to the time in 2021. I'll have a look for more from October 2020 but I'm sure there are more if you look:

Laurence Fox says 'paedophile' is a 'meaningless insult'

The actor is being sued by Ru Paul's Drag Race UK star Crystal, Coronation Street actress Nicola Thorp and deputy chair of Stonewall, Simon Blake.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Source?

Because at the time from watching it was much more that he was using it as an obviously baseless remark in response to theirs, I didn't see him mention anything about "the gay = paedophile trope" (whatever that is ) .

Your link actually proves the 'walking it back' point?

 

[CapitalOne]

I don’t understand why people defend obnoxious prats like Fox. What a hill do die on. If you think he’s genuinely fighting for your right to call other people paedos and not just trying to get attention by being a pseudo-edgy clockwork orange character to earn bank I feel sorry for you.

 

[Fubsy]

I concur on him being a massive prat, however I find the perceived 'unfairness' of different flavours of the same jibe being treated differently to be mildly interesting.

Still, just like Musk or Trump, anyone that isn't palatable in certain circles, is the focus rather than the issue.

By my definition of the word, L Fox is not a racist - same as the other two are not peados. However, despite this, calling one lot one thing affects their lives whereas the other does not. Either punish both or leave them to being mud slinging prats and leave the rest of us to not have this gutter level bickering in the public eye.

 

[Greebo]

I concur on him being a massive prat, however I find the perceived 'unfairness' of different flavours of the same jibe being treated differently to be mildly interesting.

Still, just like Musk or Trump, anyone that isn't palatable in certain circles, is the focus rather than the issue.

By my definition of the word, L Fox is not a racist - same as the other two are not peados. However, despite this, calling one lot one thing affects their lives whereas the other does not. Either punish both or leave them to being mud slinging prats and leave the rest of us to not have this gutter level bickering in the public eye.

And yet a man who you think is not a racist uses the N word and blackface as his defence in front of the judge? But it doesnt matter. Clearly, as the Judge pointed out, him being called a racist was not defamatory as he failed to produce any evidence at all that it caused him any harm whereas the people he called peados where called it by many of Fox's followers and physically threatened because of it. Ergo Fox's tweet was defamatory.

 

[Pudney]

I concur on him being a massive prat, however I find the perceived 'unfairness' of different flavours of the same jibe being treated differently to be mildly interesting.

Still, just like Musk or Trump, anyone that isn't palatable in certain circles, is the focus rather than the issue.

By my definition of the word, L Fox is not a racist - same as the other two are not peados. However, despite this, calling one lot one thing affects their lives whereas the other does not. Either punish both or leave them to being mud slinging prats and leave the rest of us to not have this gutter level bickering in the public eye.

Fox called someone racist and defended his right to do so.

Fox got called racist and sued for defamation.

Fact 1 came back to bite Fox in the bum.

1. The story for present purposes, and as the parties variously tell it, begins on 16th January 2020, when Mr Fox appeared as a panellist on the BBC's late evening current affairs show Question Time, hosted by Ms Fiona Bruce. An audience member asked a question about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex 'making a profit' from their royal status. Ms Bruce turned to Mr Fox first. He expressed some sympathy for the young couple's predicament, but felt 'there is a little bit of having cake and eating it which I don't enjoy'. There was support for that from the audience. Ms Bruce turned to another audience member, a young woman of colour, who observed that the press had, in the case of the Duchess, 'torn her to pieces', and continued, 'and let's be really clear about what this is – let's call it by its name – it's racism'.
2. There followed something of a heated, raised-voice, altercation between Mr Fox and the audience member. Mr Fox insisted it was not racism: the UK was the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe. 'It is so easy to throw the term 'racism' at everybody and it is really starting to get boring.' The audience member retorted that he was a white privileged male with no relevant experience. At this, Mr Fox rolled his eyes, sank his face into his arms, and responded with some vehemence, 'I can't help what I am. I was born like this, it is an immutable characteristic, and so to call me a white privileged male is to be racist. You are being racist.' There was vocal audience engagement with both speakers

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

I concur on him being a massive prat, however I find the perceived 'unfairness' of different flavours of the same jibe being treated differently to be mildly interesting.

Still, just like Musk or Trump, anyone that isn't palatable in certain circles, is the focus rather than the issue.

By my definition of the word, L Fox is not a racist - same as the other two are not peados. However, despite this, calling one lot one thing affects their lives whereas the other does not. Either punish both or leave them to being mud slinging prats and leave the rest of us to not have this gutter level bickering in the public eye.

He's not on trial for being a prat or being unpalatable, even though he is both to some people. That is not the focus of the court. If you're talking about internet forum chat then I'd probably give you that.

 

[Fubsy]

He's not on trial for being a prat or being unpalatable, even though he is both to some people. That is not the focus of the court. If you're talking about internet forum chat then I'd probably give you that.

Entirely correct.

The definition of racism, or it's definition being distorted over the past decade, appears to be at the core of the discussion around this. I do not see what Fox intends to achieve in any of his court shenanigans. It's a waste of everyone's time.

And yet a man who you think is not a racist uses the N word and blackface as his defence in front of the judge? But it doesnt matter. Clearly, as the Judge pointed out, him being called a racist was not defamatory as he failed to produce any evidence at all that it caused him any harm whereas the people he called peados where called it by many of Fox's followers and physically threatened because of it. Ergo Fox's tweet was defamatory.

You make it sound like he called the judge the N word and turned up in blackface. Did he? I've not been following what's been going on other than this thread.

@Pudney that exchange does sound like Fox was judged by the colour of his skin. That's a definition of racism.

 

[Pudney]

@Pudney that exchange does sound like Fox was judged by the colour of his skin. That's a definition of racism.

Perhaps, and that point was considered in the judgement

1. 'Racist' is a term of which Mr Fox makes free use himself, to criticise this 'orthodoxy' and establish the superior claims of his own opinions. His exchange with the audience member at Question Time illustrates this in microcosm. She called the media racist in their treatment of the Duchess of Sussex. He told her it was not racist. She challenged his entitlement to say so. He called her challenge racist. Public opinion was divided on whether that was racist. So there we have a free and vigorous contest of opinion about what is and is not racist. Mr Fox insists his view is the (only) correct one. But his political project at the very least must and does acknowledge the existence of a wide and indeed entrenched body of contrary opinion, however wrong or misguided he may consider it. And the Question Time exchange seems to have told the public at least as much about Mr Fox and his views in 'calling out' racism as it did about the audience member and hers (and quite a lot more than it did about the British media, the ostensible subject matter of the exchange).
2. 
   
3. Mr Fox called Sainsbury's racist (promoting 'racial segregation and discrimination') on account of its 'safe spaces' policy. A substantial body of opinion at the time thought that having an online forum where employees of colour could discuss their reactions to the issues of the day – institutional racism, BLM and so on – without being overheard or judged by their employers (whose views they might after all be minded to include in that potentially critical discussion), was positively anti-racist. Sainsbury's, as a large and successful UK retailer, was doubtless not intending to be radically or alienatingly counter-cultural in providing its safe space, although its challenge to shoppers who disagreed with its inclusivity policies to go elsewhere might be regarded either as 'brave', or as a confident bet on what the overwhelming majority of its customers were likely to do in reality. Mr Fox strongly disagreed with all this and said so. Some people thought that was being anti-anti-racist – hence racist – and said so. And Mr Fox confirmed to me that in principle he would defend anyone's right to have and express a range of diverse views about what – and who – is and is not racist. He exercises that right freely himself. That is the public debate he tells me he seeks - what his anti-suppressive political mission is all about.
4. 
   
5. So I bear in mind that these particular allegations of being a racist were opinions offered in the context of a lively contest of ideas which Mr Fox had himself stimulated, some might think provocatively so, about what constitutes being racist. He no doubt considered the criticisms of racism that he received to 'make his point for him' (as he put it to Ms Thorp) – they were misguided expressions of 'orthodox' and suppressive beliefs about what did and did not constitute racism. Like the Question Time altercation, it was a debate about racism and the accusations of racism made might well be considered by publishees to say as much about the makers and their world view as they did about Mr Fox and his (and quite a lot more than they did about Sainsbury's). I take that into account in considering their inherent potential to cause serious reputational harm to Mr Fox.

Edit: and all this Question Time stuff happened 10 months before the Twitter exchanges in the defamation case, where Fox had already complained about being an outcast from the acting community, where he had already been warned about how he presented his opinions and what that may mean for his acting career.

 

[Fubsy]

Perhaps, and that point was considered in the judgement



Edit: and all this Question Time stuff happened 10 months before the Twitter exchanges in the defamation case, where Fox had already complained about being an outcast from the acting community, where he had already been warned about how he presented his opinions and what that may mean for his acting career.

Cheers for sharing.

At least we don't have grey areas around what is, and what isn't, a peadophile.

 

[Pudney]

Cheers for sharing.

At least we don't have grey areas around what is, and what isn't, a peadophile.

It's actually fascinating how weak his defence reads, even on Fox's own comments I think he knew he was wrong to do what he did.

Mr Fox himself described it at the time as the 'most cruel' allegation he could think of. Its cruelty lies not only in the repugnance with which paedophilia is regarded, but also – at any rate when levelled against a man – in its unique quality of never being instinctively incredible any more.

But Mr Fox's 'paedophile' tweets…were short and pithy tweets of between three and six words. They followed swiftly after the tweets to which they responded. They do not give the appearance of being carefully considered or crafted. They are straightforward assertions. The one striking word was "paedophile". The reader trying to understand what Mr Fox was getting at was given very little else to work with. The only relevant context (on the judge's findings) was that which would have been apparent to all readers. In substance that was no more than the quote-tweet. On the face of it, the allegation was the one complained of.

Mr Fox says that he did not intend to allege that any of the claimants was in fact a paedophile. But I do not think he can complain of being misunderstood on these occasions. The constraints of Twitter gave him plenty of room to say more than he did in these tweets. There is a good deal of force in Ms Rogers' submission to us: if Mr Fox had wanted to say "I am no more a racist than you are a paedophile" he could have done so.

As the Courts have already confirmed at the preliminary issues stages, these were not 'equivalent' allegations. One was an expression of opinion referenced to Mr Fox's published and dramatic stance on Sainsbury's 'racism'. The other was a decontextualised and unqualified factual allegation of criminality. The asymmetry is plain, and that is a problem for 'equivalence'.

Mr Blake and Mr Seymour attracted further online 'paedophile' abuse and accusation in the context of, and both up to and during the hearing of, this case. I do not need to, and do not, rely on that to reach a view that serious harm was caused by the original tweets. But I do observe in passing that once an excuse and an influential example is given, and the beast of paedophiliac rumour is released, its appetite can prove voracious and its instinct for vulnerability unerring. That is how serious reputational harm works. That is why the prospect of reputational vindication in law necessarily exists.

He responded to an opinion comment critical of his call to boycott Sainsbury's on grounds of 'racial segregation' with utterly random, and harmful, factual allegations of criminal paedophilia. The Court of Appeal noted at the preliminary issues stage that the paedophile allegations had 'no apparent connection' with the statements quote-tweeted by Mr Fox. This is the very epitome of 'mere retaliation' – an escalatory and disproportionate response by way of entirely irrelevant statements.

Say what you will about the English legal system, but the principle of open justice can be fascinating, and the disparity between media discourse and actual events concerning.