[–] banjo 30 points (+30|-0)

Good for her. I wish more libelous publications would get sued.

[–] Ash94 22 points (+22|-0) Edited

About time Di*k News are held accountable for the harmful stuff they put out.

[–] kaitzi 14 points (+14|-0)

I was hopeful but legally I doubt it will hold up.

Libel laws are very lenient with “not libel” basically being the default.

Regardless of the backlash you really can’t take a piece that doesn’t name names say “that’s about me” and win a libel case.

[–] Hyacinth 10 points (+10|-0) Edited

But it sends a message not to intentionally slander, play fast and loose with the truth because it "doesn't name them" or its "just twitter" and pay the libel piper. Its bad publicity that communicates your publication is a rag not fit to wip a bottom.

[–] kaitzi 7 points (+7|-0)

Meh. Disagree. Only a win would do that, and I will be very shocked if this wins.

This inevitable loss will only make these publications bolder.

I thought UK had much stricter libel laws than the US.

If you are in the US and a private citizen, you have to prove the statement is false with reckless disregard for the truth, and that the person who wrote it knew it was a lie and published it anyway.

If you are a public figure in the US, you are pretty much screwed. They have to prove all of the above and prove it was done with malice (to intentionally cause harm).

[–] kaitzi 5 points (+5|-0)

It’s true UK isn’t the same, but I still have a hard time believing that an individual would win when they weren’t named - as it should be.

If not, think of the possible flip side, this could have terrible repercussions for rape victims who want to tell their story.

“I was raped by a college classmate” Rapist: “she’s OBVIOUSLY talking about me but she has no actual proof I did it, she needs to pay me $100,000”

That should not be allowed to win, and unless there’s more damning details than what’s written here, it’s basically the same.

“ The article itself does not name Bindel, but she argues the combination of a Pink News campaign against her, wider information publicly available on Ms. Dyess’ Twitter feed, several individuals identifying Bindel at the time the article was published and the social media reaction at the time (which swiftly identified her) made perfectly clear who the piece referred”

If this is how it happened, and there’s any proof they were aware of it, isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Otherwise you could just write whatever you wanted about someone technically unnamed and use an anonymous social media account to let everyone know the name of the person.

It doesn’t sound like she’s the one who said it was about her, so much as everyone else.

[–] kaitzi 2 points (+2|-0)

If dyess named her she should go after her, not a publication that left her unnamed.

[–] Nona_Biba 4 points (+4|-0)

YEAHHHHH! Sorry for shouting but I've never been so excited about someone taking an organization to court. Down with Prick News!

[–] calming-tea 3 points (+3|-0)

I wish the suing was made against pink news for other reasons

[–] Boudicaea 1 points (+1|-0)

Oh this is about that woman who was mad that rad fems bought her dinner or whatever? That woman was nuts. They really ought to be sued for publishing that story.