Christian womans faith leverages higher libel payout

[Tommy Tainant]

I don't think he's laughing now: Christian Jessen to pay record damages over Arlene Foster false tweet

Celebrity doctor Christian Jessen is to pay Arlene Foster £125,000 in damages for a false tweet that she was having an extra-marital affair, a High Court judge has ruled.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Heres an interesting one. Foster is the Leader of the misogynist and homophobic DUP. She took some bloke to court over his claims that she was shagging her security guard.

She won the case and was awarded £125k plus costs.

The Judge stated ;

Assessing the scale of damage inflicted, he said: "To state that a woman, married for twenty five and a half years and the mother of three children, who is a committed Christian and is publicly recognised as such, who has publicly made statements extolling the sanctity and importance of marriage as a sacred relationship between a man and a woman, who also happens to be the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, its former spokesperson on equality and human rights and a holder of the Office of First Minister of Northern Ireland, was an adulterer, a hypocrite and a homophobe, is a most serious libel and is grossly defamatory.

I have no problem with the verdict or the size of the payout. It will put trolls on notice. there are consequences for lying about people. But it is surely perverse to link it to the complainants' religious beliefs. Surely every married person would feel the same about such an accusation?

I suspect that the old fool has overstepped the mark here and that there may be grounds for appeal.

 

[Floyd61]

Change the word Christian with the word muslim, and you'll like the story

 

[there4eyeM]

It was stupid to have stated the situation as a fact. If the tweet had expressed an opinion or suspicion, things would be different.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have no problem with the verdict or the size of the payout. It will put trolls on notice. there are consequences for lying about people. But it is surely perverse to link it to the complainants' religious beliefs.

The damage to any person's character by a slanderous statement surely has some significant dependence on how the slander relates to that person's claimed moral and religious values.

To make an example:

Let us first assume that neither you nor I drink alcohol, and certainly neither of us are alcoholics.

I'll assume that you do not see anything wrong with moderate use of alcohol, and to accuse you of having an occasional drink would probably not be slanderous at all. To accuse you of being an alcoholic might cross the line into slander.

I'm a member of a religion that specifically condemns the use of alcohol, and I have, all my life, been faithful at least to that aspect of my religion. So even to accuse me of having an occasional alcoholic drink would, indeed, be slander. To accuse me of being an alcoholic would be a more serious slander against me, than it would be against you.

Because of my religion and because of my professed adherence to this value of my religion.

Surely every married person would feel the same about such an accusation?

I can think of one specific member of this forum who claims to be married, and who has boasted of having adulterous sexual involvements with women other than his wife; who professes to see nothing at all wrong with such behavior. OK, so he's an extreme outlier, but if you make a blanket statement such as what you just made, it only takes one fringe outlier to refute it.

That aside, I would have to say that the seriousness of an instance of slander would have some dependency on how solidly the victim of that slander professes to hold to a value which that slander accuses him of violating. And a religious underpinning for that value surely makes such a profession stronger than without such an underpinning, and therefore renders such a slander deeper and more serious.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have no problem with the verdict or the size of the payout. It will put trolls on notice. there are consequences for lying about people. But it is surely perverse to link it to the complainants' religious beliefs.

The damage to any person's character by a slanderous statement surely has some significant dependence on how the slander relates to that person's claimed moral and religious values.

To make an example:

Let us first assume that neither you nor I drink alcohol, and certainly neither of us are alcoholics.

I'll assume that you do not see anything wrong with moderate use of alcohol, and to accuse you of having an occasional drink would probably not be slanderous at all. To accuse you of being an alcoholic might cross the line into slander.

I'm a member of a religion that specifically condemns the use of alcohol, and I have, all my life, been faithful at least to that aspect of my religion. So even to accuse me of having an occasional alcoholic drink would, indeed, be slander. To accuse me of being an alcoholic would be a more serious slander against me, than it would be against you.

Because of my religion and because of my professed adherence to this value of my religion.

Surely every married person would feel the same about such an accusation?

I can think of one specific member of this forum who claims to be married, and who has boasted of having adulterous sexual involvements with women other than his wife; who professes to see nothing at all wrong with such behavior. OK, so he's an extreme outlier, but if you make a blanket statement such as what you just made, it only takes one fringe outlier to refute it.

That aside, I would have to say that the seriousness of an instance of slander would have some dependency on how solidly the victim of that slander professes to hold to a value which that slander accuses him of violating. And a religious underpinning for that value surely makes such a profession stronger than without such an underpinning, and therefore renders such a slander deeper and more serious.

You make a persuasive case Bob. But are you not opening the door to all religious people of all faiths to claim offence for things which aren't in themselves illegal or considered immoral in the nation in question ?

For example some religions ban certain foods. Should Abdul get a bigger payout for being accused of eating pork than myself if I was a vegetarian ?

My thought is that I dont think so.

In this instance Ive been married 25 years and am a semi lapsed methodist. Is the hurt to me less than that to Arlene because she is a full blown Presbyterian ? Should I get less of a payout ? That suggests my marriage has less value than hers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You make a persuasive case Bob. But are you not opening the door to all religious people of all faiths to claim offence for things which aren't in themselves illegal or considered immoral in the nation in question ?

For example some religions ban certain foods. Should Abdul get a bigger payout for being accused of eating pork than myself if I was a vegetarian ?

My thought is that I dont [sic] think so.

I see no reason why not.

It's no slander to me to accuse me of eating pork.

Abdul (presumably a Muslim who professes strict adherence to the Halal dietary standards) would be slandered by a false accusation that he was eating pork; because it directly suggests that he violates standards which he professes to follow, based on a solid religious underpinning.

How serious a slander it would be against you, as a professed vegetarian would depend on how strongly you professed to be a vegetarian, and on what basis.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You make a persuasive case Bob. But are you not opening the door to all religious people of all faiths to claim offence for things which aren't in themselves illegal or considered immoral in the nation in question ?

For example some religions ban certain foods. Should Abdul get a bigger payout for being accused of eating pork than myself if I was a vegetarian ?

My thought is that I dont [sic] think so.

I see no reason why not.

It's no slander to me to accuse me of eating pork.

Abdul (presumably a Muslim who professes strict adherence to the Halal dietary standards) would be slandered by a false accusation that he was eating pork; because it directly suggests that he violates standards which he professes to follow, based on a solid religious underpinning.

How serious a slander it would be against you, as a professed vegetarian would depend on how strongly you professed to be a vegetarian, and on what basis.

I cant see why your religion should entitle you to more damages. It suggests that all marriages are not equal under the law. And they obviously are.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I cant see why your religion should entitle you to more damages. It suggests that all marriages are not equal under the law. And they obviously are.

I guess it is no surprise that you completely fail to understand the point that I was making. I should just accept that you have certain moral and intellectual limitations that prevent you from understanding what is obvious to normal people. It's not like that was ever not blatantly obvious about you.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I cant see why your religion should entitle you to more damages. It suggests that all marriages are not equal under the law. And they obviously are.

I guess it is no surprise that you completely fail to understand the point that I was making. I should just accept that you have certain moral and intellectual limitations that prevent you from understanding what is obvious to normal people. It's not like that was ever not blatantly obvious about you.

Your rsponse didnt address the key point of the Judges ruling. Are marriages involving people of faith,whatever faith, more important than those where people of no faith get married ?

 

[surada]

It was stupid to have stated the situation as a fact. If the tweet had expressed an opinion or suspicion, things would be different.

Slander and lies have consequences.. Lives can be shattered,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Your rsponse [sic] didnt [sic] address the key point of the Judges ruling. Are marriages involving people of faith,whatever faith, more important than those where people of no faith get married ?

What is important to the seriousness of slander is the degree to which the victim is falsely accused of engaging in bad behavior, contrary to the standards imposed by society, and by the victim's own professed moral and ethical standards. The victim's religious faith is certainly relevant to how serious a false accusation is of acting against the values of that faith.

Just like the example I gave earlier, where a false accusation of me being an alcoholic would be more serious than the same accusation made falsely against you, because of my professed religious values that prohibit me from drinking alcohol.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Your rsponse [sic] didnt [sic] address the key point of the Judges ruling. Are marriages involving people of faith,whatever faith, more important than those where people of no faith get married ?

What is important to the seriousness of slander is the degree to which the victim is falsely accused of engaging in bad behavior, contrary to the standards imposed by society, and by the victim's own professed moral and ethical standards. The victim's religious faith is certainly relevant to how serious a false accusation is of acting against the values of that faith.

Just like the example I gave earlier, where a false accusation of me being an alcoholic would be more serious than the same accusation made falsely against you, because of my professed religious values that prohibit me from drinking alcohol.

What you are saying is that some marriages are worth more than others. That is hardly fair.
Example - Is Mike pnces marriage worth more than Trumps ? Pence is a christian and trump has several failed marriages. I would suggest that under the law they rank the same.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It was stupid to have stated the situation as a fact. If the tweet had expressed an opinion or suspicion, things would be different.

Slander and lies have consequences.. Lives can be shattered,

It was the correct decision. The reasoning behind it is questionable though.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What you are saying is that some marriages are worth more than others. That is hardly fair.

It's difficult to tell if you're being willfully dishonest, or just plain ignorant. Most likely, some combination of both.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What you are saying is that some marriages are worth more than others. That is hardly fair.

It's difficult to tell if you're being willfully dishonest, or just plain ignorant. Most likely, some combination of both.

View attachment 495026

So I am wrong and you are saying that all marriages are equal ?

 

[ESay]

The judge decided to choose such wording for his ruling. Did he break some legal norms? If no, what is this fuss about?

Not only did he state that she is a Christian, but a member of the DUP and the local government. Why this part didn't worry anyone?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So I am wrong and you are saying that all marriages are equal ?

You should give up on trying to speak for me.

What I am trying to say would be clear to any normal person, but you are both intellectually and morally incapable of grasping it.