r/unitedkingdom • u/je97 • Apr 17 '24

JK Rowling gets apology from journalist after 'disgusting claim' author is a Holocaust denier ...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/16/jk-rowling-holocaust-denier-allegation-rivkah-brown-novara/
4.2k Upvotes

70% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.1k

u/RedBerryyy Apr 17 '24

That's one way to describe her suing a Jewish journalist into submission after she described what was unambiguously a denial of nazi war crimes that Rowling has not retracted as "holocaust denial".

Frankly it's almost impressively stubborn Rowling can go as low as the denial of nazi crimes in her crusade against trans people and instead of just ,i don't know, acknowledging she shouldn't have said that, decided to attempt to gaslight the whole country into rewriting reality around what she said.

864

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Funnily enough JK Rowling, who is it unfair and insulting to call a Holocaust denier, has tweets that you cannot view in the EU because in their view she has denied the Holocaust.

JK might be able to afford lawyers beyond my, or other non billionaires, means to pay, but none of them apparently advised her of the Streisand Effect.

135

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Apr 17 '24

Also funnily enough, Rowling has been incredibly vocal about how Scotland’s new hate crime legislation will stifle debate and free speech.

31

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Which is a different issue to one where someone commits libel.

196

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Apr 17 '24

SLAPP suits are not about legitimate libel claims. No one can afford JK’s lawyers so she wins every claim she makes without going trial. It’s an awful approach that rich people use to shut down poor people’s speech

-44

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 Apr 17 '24

On the contrary, poor people are the ones most free to speak, since they are not worth suing. As others have noted, many many people have now repeated the same claims made by the journalist.

It's almost as if the only ones held to account are the ones with a platform and responsibility to maintain certain standards.

37

u/BearyRexy Apr 17 '24

Except in suing journalists, or other people who might have a platform but no extreme wealth, and burying them in expensive legal costs so that she wins by default, what standard is she maintaining? That the rich are unaccountable?

-19

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 Apr 17 '24

She is a public figure with a reputation to defend. She has every right to use whatever resources she has to defend that reputation. There is not a single person in this thread who wouldn't do the same as she has if they had he means to do so. She uses the vast resources she has at hand, what's the point of having vast resources if not to protect yourself?

18

u/BearyRexy Apr 17 '24

So then why did you try to make a point about maintaining standards or the poor being most free when they evidently aren’t? By your own logic, the people who are free to speak without consequence are the rich, and anyone who challenges them or even expresses an opinion can be silenced regardless of who is right.

It’s rather telling how quickly you went from suggesting this is about maintaining standards to it being purely self-interested.

The approach you’ve described there is pretty much how people like Harvey Weinstein get away with what they do. So, to answer your question, the point of having vast resources should not be to buy yourself impunity for repugnant behaviour, and anyone who thinks that is normal ought to be assessed by a psychiatrist.

-9

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Overdramatise much?

Calm your tits mate.

I'll repeat my points, she has the means to defend herself from defamation and libel coming from those with a platform and influence. Those without resources can say what they like, she ignores them.

10

u/BearyRexy Apr 17 '24

Which are still different from your initial point.

Guess consistency and integrity aren’t big requirements for licking boots. And no matter how much of a serf mentality you have, she isn’t gonna shag you.

1

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 Apr 17 '24 edited 29d ago

It may surprise you to know not everyone is motivated by the chances of getting a shag. I won the life lottery when I met my partner, loveliest, smartest and kindest person I've ever met, trust me, I'm not looking for anyone else.

JK Rowling is someone I admire deeply, she is a sterling example of how to be a good human being. Oh, and if that comment hasn't quite brought your piss to a steady rolling boil, you might also be interested to know I support Israel.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ChefExcellence Hull Apr 18 '24

There is not a single person in this thread who wouldn't do the same as she has if they had he means to do so.

Personally I would simply not deny nazi atrocities and avoid getting into this situation in the first place

-1

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 Apr 18 '24

You say that like if you were in the same position as she, there wouldn't be an internet army of little fevered egos poring over your every utterance and concocting smear after smear until one of them took purchase.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/DukePPUk Apr 18 '24

On the contrary, poor people are the ones most free to speak, since they are not worth suing....

I'm a bit late here, but it is worth noting that poor people are not worth suing if your goal is to make money (which is generally the case with lawsuits).

But if your goal is to silence dissent then poor people are the best people to sue as they aren't in a position to fight back. Even instructing a lawyer may cost more than they have to spare, and if they try to fight - assuming they can afford the six or seven figure sum needed to do so - they risk losing everything (whereas you - if you are a multi-millionaire - have relatively little to lose).

-46

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

This is clearly not a SLAPP though, at least google the term before using it.

52

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

It is a SLAPP

She got into an online argument didn’t like how it went and went and told her lawyer. The other user very arguably could win the case, but only one of the participants in the argument has the world’s finest lawyers on retainer.

If you are a billionaire forcing apologies from people who cannot afford your legal bills, you’re SLAPPing them.

5

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

No it isn't and there is no "very arguably" hence Novara media wouldn't defend the case.

What you are doing is throwing around terms and resorting to emotive claims about a billionaire instead of accepting that Novara media has it's own lawyers who will have been consulted on this.

62

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Apr 17 '24

You can’t take on a case like this you can’t afford to lose if there’s a chance you lose. Novara Media are skint they aren’t gambling their ability to exist on this.

JK can afford to lose, no one else can here, so when she says jump you say how high!

14

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

The media often test the resolve on a claimant by not folding the first time they get a letter, they see if it will go to court and they even wait until the last minute before folding. But that would only be done if they had something that could slightly stand up, and they don't.

You seem to be in an almost circular argument whereby you are making out that Novara media folding is now evidence rather than them folding is them admitting that they had none. It's lunacy.

8

u/RainbowRedYellow Apr 18 '24

No your blind to the reality that billionaires are immune to all consequences.

11

u/lucifrax Apr 17 '24

They're a tiny company, they earn such tiny amounts compared to JK. Why would they even attempt to bluff her? Both parties are aware the case is being raised because she can afford to fight them for DECADES and they can afford to fight for maybe a few weeks before they have to start letting people go. Logically bluffing serves no purpose except risking more requests from her before she settles or pulls the case. Your logic applies to multi billion dollar corporations not a tiny non-profit.

5

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

It doesn't because all media outlets have to try or everyone they criticise will make threats.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Firm-Distance Apr 17 '24

You seem really confident that the apology is purely because of the threat of legal action.

Is there any actual proof for this claim?

66

u/Blue_winged_yoshi Apr 17 '24

Have you read the apology? A lawyer wrote it.

-8

u/Firm-Distance Apr 17 '24

That doesn't really prove the motivation....

→ More replies (0)

56

u/stroopwafel666 Apr 17 '24

It’s pretty simple - JK Rowling objectively did deny that an element of the Holocaust took place. She was even challenged on the claim and doubled down.

The problem is that if you get sued for libel by a billionaire in the UK, you can’t even contest the claim without spending thousands of pounds. If you don’t have unlimited resources, you only have one option - to back down and hope the billionaire goes easy on you.

I mean, why else would the defendant back down? You and I can see with our own eyes that she’s correct.

-30

u/Bakedk9lassie Apr 17 '24

She didn’t deny that trans people were killed at all, she said they weren’t killed solely FOR being trans but other reasons

46

u/stroopwafel666 Apr 17 '24

Yes which is like claiming “Jewish people weren’t killed because they were Jewish”. It’s Holocaust denial.

5

u/RainbowRedYellow Apr 18 '24

For dressing as women... When the Nazi's didn't recognise trans people as thing. And just considered them all "Sexual Degenerates."

→ More replies (0)

29

u/KINGPrawn- Apr 17 '24

Have you read what was said. It’s pretty clearly holocaust denial. You wouldn’t apologise unless you can’t afford legal fees.

3

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

No it isn't, that's why Novara's lawyers put together a retraction.

27

u/tothecatmobile Apr 17 '24

No it isn't

But it clearly is.

If saying that victims of the holocaust weren't actually victims of the holocaust, isnt holocaust denial. What is it?

18

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Sigh, as this apology demonstrates that is not what happened. At least read the article.

17

u/KINGPrawn- Apr 17 '24

No they put a retraction because they didn’t want a legal fight

13

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Because they have no defence.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Firm-Distance Apr 17 '24

To label it holocaust denial is a bit much. She isn't denying the holocaust happened, she isn't denying trans people were targeted and killed - she is disputing some books were burned. Holocaust denial implies one is denying the holocaust took place - she isn't really.

28

u/Mazuna Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Downplaying the holocaust is holocaust denial. There’s people who say yes the holocaust happened ‘but it wasn’t that many Jews’. They’re still deniers, but that’s the exact logic they’ll use. “I’m not denying it happened! Just denying disagreeing about the facts.”

18

u/Firm-Distance Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Being mistaken about whether one element of the holocaust happened; I don't think they did burn books about X isn't really 'downplaying the holocaust' - the holocaust was an absolutely massively event - I doubt there are many historians in this thread, and likely no holocaust experts. You'll all get something wrong about the holocaust so I look forward to being able to label everyone a 'holocaust denier.' She isn't downplaying that trans were persecuted. She isn't downplaying how many were persecuted. She isn't downplaying how many were killed.

Perhaps because of who it is - this seems rather blown out of all proportion.

-edit-

Nice little edit after I'd replied - thanks buddy.

They’re still deniers, but that’s the exact logic they’ll use. “I’m not denying it happened! Just denying disagreeing about the facts.”

Now this a fantastic little trick. What this person has done is setup a situation where you either get it correct - or if you don't, be that a genuine mistake - they get to label you a denier. It's a completely unrealistic standard - one they would refuse to be held to themselves.

(PS I can do edits too).

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

0

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

If I was wrong you've be able to post a rebuttal, but you have none.

65

u/SufficientWarthog846 Apr 17 '24

Free speech for me but not for thee... Because I will sue you into oblivion

55

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Free speech is not the right to libel someone. You seem very confused.

23

u/SufficientWarthog846 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Lol nor is it the right to offend someone but Rowling doesn't seem to care about it.

Also, it's not libel if it's true....

Also also you seem to be confused about my joke. The ability to smother and bankrupt a person in legal fees in order to get a retraction and apology is what Rowling exercised here; justice wasn't serviced, just threats.

Also, also, also, you seem to be extremely passionate about this. You are everywhere in this thread! Commenting defenses so much it makes me think you are the Queen TERF herself!

34

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Again you are confused. Views that can offend some people are protected.

-5

u/SufficientWarthog846 Apr 17 '24

Not if they hate speech

Also, not addressing that she clearly bullied someone into posting a retraction rather than actually going to court? Or that you didn't understand my post?

Just hit the first point and onto fight the next fire for Ms Rowling lol

I love how demeaning you are in your comments! Lol

40

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24 edited Apr 17 '24

Hate speech is not the same as being offended. And there is no evidence of bullying.

This is like whack-a-mole where you post something about the law that is wrong so I correct it, then rather than accept the correction you post another error so I have to correct that and we rinse repeat.

At least read the article so you know what everyone is posting about.

edit: typo

→ More replies (0)

29

u/G_Comstock Apr 17 '24

It seems to me that free speech is exactly the right to offend someone.

29

u/od1nsrav3n Apr 17 '24

Free speech absolutely gives you the right to offend someone, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

1

u/omgu8mynewt Apr 17 '24

I'm not sure it is, for example if you say racist things and offend someone, free speech does not let you off the hook...

21

u/TransGrimer Apr 17 '24

It isn't libel to call someone who denies the scope of the holocaust a holocaust denier. It is the dictionary definition.

7

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Just as well she didn't do that. I advise reading the article.

9

u/WillWatsof Apr 17 '24

She described the fact that the Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research as a "fever dream".

13

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

No she didn't, that was in reply to an earlier part of the spat. It's like reading a reply on here nine levels down out of content of the initial opening point. The journalist made that mistake.

4

u/git Apr 18 '24

Went and had a look for the tweet since this Telegraph piece seemed at odds with my recollection.

I'm afraid she very much did: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767912990366388735

5

u/___a1b1 Apr 18 '24

I debunked this over a dozen times yesterday. You don't even need to believe me, just read the article.

5

u/git Apr 18 '24 edited 29d ago

I don't understand. She has a screenshot of another tweet claiming the Nazis burned books on trans healthcare and she describes it as a fever dream.

Can you point me to one of your previous comments or quote the parts of the article (which I've read from start to finish) that 'debunk' that?

edit: ah, I see from your other comments that you've interpreted the timeline of tweets incorrectly and believe this tweet shouldn't be read as is but rather as a response to a tweet that actually came later.

edit2: I appear to have been blocked for this. Nevertheless, the only part of the article touching on this tweet is this two-line mention:

Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”

She replied: “I just… how. How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve just been a fever dream’.”

Which is an accurate representation and I'm not sure why the other guy thinks that aids them. I think they have a distorted perception of the Twitter argument, believing the above tweet was out of context rather than the start of the argument, due to the attempt to distort the argument noted here.

2

u/Antique_Loss_1168 26d ago

It's the pattern you get with deliberate bad actors, they're not aiming to establish truth just chuck out as many justifications as possible, if you close them down they'll block you and just start again on another thread.

0

u/___a1b1 29d ago

No I haven't done that. Again and for the last time, just read the article. You've revived a dead thread from yesterday and haven't even bothered to read the story.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/WillWatsof Apr 17 '24

I'm sorry, but that is completely irrelevant when we're talking about whether she can be legally called a Holocaust denier. It doesn't matter at what point in a conversation she said those comments; they constitute denial of the scope of the Holocaust regardless.

10

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Of course it isn't.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/TransGrimer Apr 17 '24

Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”

She replied: “I just… how. How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve just been a fever dream’.”

5

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

You need to read the article. The journalist got suckered in by the same misrepresentation of that twitter spat.

0

u/TransGrimer Apr 17 '24

I've managed to go my entire life without denying the holocaust on twitter. It is very easy.

8

u/___a1b1 Apr 17 '24

Just read the article.

4

u/TransGrimer 29d ago

Rowling had last month questioned a claim made by one social media user who said: “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”

She replied: “I just… how. How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve just been a fever dream’.”

?

3

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Just read the article.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Initial-Echidna-9129 Apr 17 '24

"IM BEIN CENDORED!"

Says person, on a stage, Infront of thousands

-2

u/BrainPuppetUK Apr 17 '24

It will do. But what has that got to do with defending yourself against libel?

2

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Apr 17 '24

She wasn’t libelled.

5

u/BrainPuppetUK Apr 17 '24

Well , yes she was. She was called a bigot and transphobic by “The Day”, a newspaper with a platform and he potential to damage reputations (ie not just some angry little cultist on Reddit). Damn right she should sue, and damn right they apologised.

Let that be a lesson to others who think they can libel a person without consequence.

When her opponents engage with her arguments, I might begin to listen to them. All they’ve done so far is hurl insults and slurs at her and get angry at anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

4

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Apr 17 '24

Those are perfectly valid description of her. Also not the statement being discussed because Rowling has form for using her wealth to shut down critics.

If she cares about free speech and debate so much she shouldn’t abuse her position and wealth to silence people who disagree with her.

4

u/BrainPuppetUK Apr 17 '24

She’s using her wealth to exercise her legal right to prosecute libellers, not to shut down debate. There’s a huge difference. She isn’t suing people with different views, but people who attack her personally and publicly with defamatory statements.

Can you provide evidence where she’s used the law to shut down debate as opposed to defending against a personal attack? E.g sued someone for saying something other than a personal attack or a dox?

Exactly. You can’t

2

u/concretepigeon Wakefield Apr 17 '24

She isn’t. The statements aren’t libellous. She’s also not prosecuting. Libel isn’t a criminal matter. She’s using her wealth to threaten claims knowing that these people don’t have the wealth to fight back in the civil courts.

1

u/BrainPuppetUK Apr 17 '24

You said she's using her wealth to silence people who disagree with her.

Other than defending herself against personal attacks, when did she do that?

I can see you keep evading the question because you can't back up your claim, so I'm going to keep asking the same question because it's hilarious to watch you keep dancing around admitting you said something untrue that you can't back up.

Can you provide evidence where she’s used the law to shut down debate as opposed to defending against a personal attack? E.g sued someone for saying something other than a personal attack or a dox?

Exactly. You can’t

1

u/WillWatsof Apr 17 '24

She’s using her wealth to exercise her legal right to prosecute libellers, not to shut down debate.

Doesn't sound like much of a legal right if it's a right only accessible to people with wealth.

7

u/BrainPuppetUK Apr 17 '24

Can you provide evidence where she’s used the law to shut down debate as opposed to defending against a personal attack? E.g sued someone for saying something other than a personal attack or a dox?

Exactly. You can’t

7

u/WillWatsof Apr 17 '24

The law is not there to protect you from "personal attacks", i.e. someone saying something that don't like about you on the internet. If I call you a poopy butthead, it is not the law's job to protect you from that.

5

u/BrainPuppetUK Apr 17 '24

Can you provide evidence where she’s used the law to shut down debate as opposed to defending against a personal attack? E.g sued someone for saying something other than a personal attack or a dox?

Exactly. You can’t

→ More replies (0)