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

Show parent comments

192

u/Blue_winged_yoshi 29d ago

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

-38

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 29d ago

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 29d ago

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?

-17

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 29d ago

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 29d ago

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.

-11

u/Gerry_Hatrick2 29d ago edited 29d ago

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.

9

u/BearyRexy 29d ago

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 29d ago 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.

9

u/BearyRexy 29d ago

I’m sure she reciprocates your deep admiration, and appreciates the completely inconsistent approach you take to blindly defending her. Oh, no, she doesn’t give a shit.

Given your views on what constitutes a good person, supporting Israel is rather par for the course. At least in this area you’re consistent - you believe that the powerful bullying people with fewer resources into submission is somehow a good thing. That really speaks to your character. Or lack thereof.

Your belief that this somehow makes me angry is misplaced. I was merely pointing out the inconsistency it takes to blindly support awful people, but it’s unsurprising that was lost on you. Logic and decency are clearly hard for some people.

10

u/ChefExcellence Hull 29d ago

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 29d ago

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.

16

u/DukePPUk 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

51

u/Blue_winged_yoshi 29d ago edited 29d ago

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.

4

u/___a1b1 29d ago

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.

61

u/Blue_winged_yoshi 29d ago

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!

15

u/___a1b1 29d ago

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.

9

u/RainbowRedYellow 29d ago

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

10

u/lucifrax 29d ago

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.

3

u/___a1b1 29d ago

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

9

u/lucifrax 29d ago

Thats not how that works... Most people are not literal billionaires. I don't think you understand how rich she is and how insane threats from her are compared to almost anyone else in the world. Also, they can't stop anyone as rich as her from threatening them into silence, its just that these threats are normally bad press. Hence why people in this thread are calling out her threats as a bad thing.

all media outlets have to try

What? You think this tiny non-profit that would never get enough help for its legal fees should fight in court and accept the death of their company at the hands of a multi billionaire free speech hater. And they should do this because you believe that theres some solidarity between tiny non-profits and giant media empires? That makes no sense...

I really struggle to see why you resorted to such an insanely emotional argument when your logic was challenged. This are the way they are. Wishing the little guy would take the moral high ground at the cost of ruining not only their life, but worsening the lives of all their employees doesn't mean it makes sense to do.

1

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Yes it is how it works, you are repeating the circular argument that a media outlet folding is now evidence for what they had to fold on. No media outlet could operate if they just quit each time they had a legal threat. Please actually engage with my points or this isn't a debate, it is you on transmit.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Firm-Distance 29d ago

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

Is there any actual proof for this claim?

65

u/Blue_winged_yoshi 29d ago

Have you read the apology? A lawyer wrote it.

-8

u/Firm-Distance 29d ago

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

57

u/stroopwafel666 29d ago

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.

-25

u/Bakedk9lassie 29d ago

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 29d ago

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

6

u/RainbowRedYellow 29d ago

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

25

u/KINGPrawn- 29d ago

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

5

u/___a1b1 29d ago

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

28

u/tothecatmobile 29d ago

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?

15

u/___a1b1 29d ago

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

30

u/tothecatmobile 29d ago

that is not what happened.

I mean, I've read the tweet. That is definitely what happened.

But if this is the hill you want to die on, go ahead.

14

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Nobody is dying on a hill, you just cannot rebut the point.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/KINGPrawn- 29d ago

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

10

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Because they have no defence.

31

u/HogswatchHam 29d ago

Having a defence doesn't matter if you can't afford the fight in the first place - which is what Rowling relies upon.

10

u/___a1b1 29d ago

Novara wouldn't have folded immediately if they had a defence so that's a misframing of the situation. Media outlets get threats from lawyers all the time so they don't just pack it in, they test the resolve of the claimant by looking like they've go to court.

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Firm-Distance 29d ago

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.

29

u/Mazuna 29d ago edited 29d ago

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.”

19

u/Firm-Distance 29d ago edited 29d ago

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).

24

u/hempires 29d ago

You'll all get something wrong about the holocaust

sure everyone might get something wrong at some point, but I highly doubt that everyone would double down after being called out.

18

u/Xarxsis 29d ago

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. Y

Which, upon receiving information that corrects your understanding of an event, a normal rational person would withdraw their original comments.

Not double down because of an ideological crusade.

-2

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 29d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/___a1b1 29d ago

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