“was giving the Claimants a taste of their own medicine”
“The reader’s understanding of [his Tweets] (and each of them, if not all were published to a particular publishee) will have been affected by [matters set out by way of context]. Different publishees, depending how and when they read the relevant Responsive Tweet(s) would have been aware of these matters at different levels of detail. However, all publishees would have been aware of the following minimum irreducible features of the words complained of: (1) Each [of the Defendant’s Tweets] was made by the Defendant in direct response to an allegation of racism against him by the particular Claimant. (2) There was no apparent cause or reason for the relevant Claimant to allege that the Defendant was a racist. (3) The Defendant retaliated by calling the relevant Claimant a ‘paedophile’.”
“Although ‘Racist’ is an ordinary English word requiring no definition, for the avoidance of any doubt it means someone who is hostile to people of different ethnicities, races or skin colours and/or who believes that some racial or ethnic groups or people with certain skin colours are inferior to others and/or who believes that people should be segregated based on their racial or ethnic origins or the colour of their skin”
“There shall be a trial of the following preliminary issues (‘the preliminary issues’) Issues in the claim (a) What natural and ordinary meaning or meanings does each publication complained of (in Paragraphs 11-13 of the Particulars of Claim) bear in relation to the relevant Claimant? (b) Is the meaning (or are the meanings) found at (a) in relation to each publication defamatory at common law of the relevant Claimant? (c) Is the publication complained of in the meaning (or meanings) found at (a) in relation to each Claimant a statement of fact or a statement of opinion?”
“The Tweet was self-contained and stood alone. It would have appeared - and been read - on its own in the timelines of the Defendant’s followers. What appeared in the immediate context in the timelines of the Defendant’s followers would have depended entirely on who else each of them followed. In that respect, Twitter is perhaps one of the most inhospitable terrains for any argument based on the context in which any particular Tweet appeared in a reader’s timeline.”
“the Defendant’s latest Tweet about Sainsbury’s was a ‘mess’ and showed that he was a ‘Racist twat’”. b) The Second Claimant contends that the meaning of his Tweet is that: “the Defendant’s response to the action taken by Sainsbury’s was cringeworthy and showed him to be a racist”. c) The Third Claimant contends that the meaning of her Tweet is that: “the Defendant’s public statements, including his response to Sainsbury’s, showed him to be unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist”. ii) Each Claimant denies that his/her Tweet bore a meaning that was defamatory of the Defendant at common law and each contends that his or her Tweet constituted: “tit-for-tat vulgar abuse of the Defendant”. iii) As to fact/opinion, each Claimant contends that his or her Tweet was, and would have appeared to readers to be, an expression of opinion. iv) Finally, as to whether relevant Tweets indicated in general or specific terms the basis of the opinion, the First and Second Claimants rely upon the fact that they had quote-Tweeted the Defendant’s Sainsbury’s Tweet (see [6] Mode of Trial Judgment). As such, the basis of the expressed opinion would have been plain to all readers. The Third Claimant, who did not quote-Tweet or otherwise include the Defendant’s Sainsbury’s Tweet, nevertheless contends that her Tweet was a response to what the Defendant had said publicly, including his Sainsbury’s Tweet. She contends: “The natural and ordinary reader would have understood from the third Claimant’s Tweet that the Defendant had made public statements included (sic) his [Sainsbury’s] Tweet and other statements”
“The term ‘racist’ is capable of a range of meanings. It does not have any defined meaning as a matter of law. Some forms of speech and behaviour are criminal because of their tendency to stir up racial hatred, or they are criminal – or more gravely criminal – because of racial motivation; but Mr Hirst has not identified any criminal offence that is cast in terms of ‘making racist comments’. In any event, the ‘charge’ in the Article is not that the claimant has committed a public order offence, or any racially aggravated offence. In its context, it represents an evaluation in everyday language of the statements quoted in the Article and others, alluded to but not identified. In ordinary language the term ‘racist’ may refer to speech or conduct that is motivated by racial prejudice, or to statements or behaviour that are objectively discriminatory, whatever their motivation. Discrimination may be direct or indirect. There is a range of views about the proper application of the term. Some, for instance, deplore the use of stereotypes about nationalities, or ‘cultural appropriation’ as racist. Others would regard that as a misapplication of the word.”
“…the only question raised by s.3(3) of the 2013 Act is whether the statement complained of indicated the basis of the opinion which it contained. That is a question of analysis or assessment which turns exclusively on the intrinsic qualities of the statement complained of. If the statement did not indicate the basis of the opinion, the analysis stops there and any defence fails. If it did, the condition is met and the analysis moves on to the next stage…”
“why do you say that?”
“unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist”
“The issue (at this stage) is not whether the factual premise is right but whether it was sufficiently indicated.”
“what a racist twat” was mere abuse because of the word “twat”