The paper demands retractions but has no leg to stand on
"it was about the right to platform anti-trans voices, not about the right to be anti-trans" is one hell of a hair to split when asking for a retraction
I wonder what was going through the lawyer's mind as he complained about tactics used to "insulate their bigotry from accountability," while he demanded retractions.
Kind of funny with this context to go and read Gill Phillips' article *from 3 weeks ago* about how lawyers are the ones preventing journalists from being sued by the rich and powerful who don't want their reporting about them out there.
"London is considered by some as the libel capital of the world, and many use English lawyers to silence their critics"
"we can usually expect to get a barrage of responses, often from expensive claimant-friendly lawyers, some of whom are hired to try to put journalists off publishing, usually by whatever means they can – threats, bluster"
You don't say.
Stand up to the bullies. We deserve to know where they stand. They did nothing to stop it, just don’t want it getting out. There’s a reason certain litigious cults use the UK for libel tourism.
Seems kind of contradictory to A. Worry that someone might be defamed by having their public viewpoints represented inaccurately and B. Demand that the evidence allowing the readers to read someone's feelings expressed first hand be removed?
That goes for the leaked letter but especially for the public opinion article. It is indeed pretzel logic to worry readers might be misled by inaccurate libel saying someone expressed transphobic views, then complain about an article being cited as evidence of someones actual views, to demand a disclaimer the article doesn't express their views... And then to never actually use the opportunity to deny they wrote the article?
Wouldn't a disclaimer claiming an article should not be considdered the authors views confuse the hell out of readers trying to figure out what their actual views are making any allegations seem more plausible? And if you are worried people might misunderstand your views, wouldn't not writing an article expressing other views in a big national newspaper be the obvious first step to avoid that?
Now if the argument is "yes this person wrote the article but not to express personal views and only to express an opinion of the broader newspaper"... Well isn't that confirming the entire premise of the critique of the broader guardian opinion staff? Isn't going into the detail of naming individuals exactly the result of being accurate? Wouldn't saying "everyone at the guardian is transphobic" be the inaccurate and slanderous thing to write?
If you worry an article inaccuratly represents the views of multiple people, isn't it weird to also complain about someone being singled out? "Its unfair to single out one transphobe without looking at the other transphobes in your inaccurate reporting that there are multiple transphobes"
So all in all a deeply weird censorious threat to send in the name of having multiple viewpoints represented...
If I had concerns about my work environment I would love it I could tell bothersome colleagues that I am only quietly trying to resolve things internally trough propper channel's while trough no fault of mine my complaints leak resulting in external pressure for bothersome colleagues to improve their behavior..
Trans rights are critical to trans people but their number of readers is limited as is the number of people whose biggest discomfort in public restrooms is that once every blue moon they have to wait in line to wash their hands behind a trans person.
This whole dustup again shows the lengths supposedly left of center professional journalists go trough to have clickbaity titillating transphobic drama drown out questions like: If you can pay bribes to parliamentarians to influence food safety inspections while there is dwindling supplies of still high standard EU foods what does that mean for the future safety of every readers daily meals?
Or if a key member of Congress supposedly just likes low taxes and wants to win in a supposedly right leaning state, wouldn't you expect them to say than in a leaked fundraising phonecall with corporate donors? You know, instead of coming awfully close to shaking down the donors by saying that "working with" (ie donating) to the opposition but not with them increases the chance of higher taxes when their party gets into power... (Its amazing how few people have heard that Manchin recording)
Massive bribes to get parliamentarians to mess up critical medical procurement and to avoid Jeff Bezos from having pay a fair share of everyones taxes are "Westminster/inside the beltway bubble" stories but raising the environmental impact of gender transition now thats a brave stand to take on!
IANAL but my understanding is that even under the our obscene libel laws they'd have trouble making this stick - I struggle to see how the things they're complaining about would fall outside 'honest opinion'.