Indeed. Libel chill is a serious problem. (See: certain scandals unfolding at the moment.) It's the term we usually apply to malicious use of libel law to shut down fair comment.
Is this a good example of that? Were the criticisms of J.K. Rowling fair, or legitimately defamatory?
The whole Rowling story it just headache inducing. On the surface it does feel like she has used her wealth to push back at what she may deem is as libelous claims but the tone of the criticism against her has been extremely harsh and perhaps at some point you just need to say enough. I'd have to find it, but after her big essay I saw prominent (ie. blue checked) Trans advocates likening her to Mike Pence. In that context, I understand that the attacks on her are not substantiated by facts and being asked to defend those comments legally feels fair.
There used to be a concern about 'libel chill' in Canada, as I recall Conrad Black hounded an author who was writing a book about him.
Indeed. Libel chill is a serious problem. (See: certain scandals unfolding at the moment.) It's the term we usually apply to malicious use of libel law to shut down fair comment.
Is this a good example of that? Were the criticisms of J.K. Rowling fair, or legitimately defamatory?
The whole Rowling story it just headache inducing. On the surface it does feel like she has used her wealth to push back at what she may deem is as libelous claims but the tone of the criticism against her has been extremely harsh and perhaps at some point you just need to say enough. I'd have to find it, but after her big essay I saw prominent (ie. blue checked) Trans advocates likening her to Mike Pence. In that context, I understand that the attacks on her are not substantiated by facts and being asked to defend those comments legally feels fair.