SLAPP Censorship - Part 21 Out of 200: It's About Behaviour Online, Not How Much Money From Shadowy Third Parties Gets Spent on Lawyers and Two Barristers
75+ KG of legal papers, 2 cases, 2 barristers (one hiding in the metadata) and maybe two law firms (also hiding in the metadata) against two modest people in Manchester seems disproportionate and vindicative
Last night we said we were "about 10% into this series" with many more series to come after that.
Our aim is not to focus on just one particular case (or pair of connected SLAPPs) but to tackle a widespread phenomenon that is not limited to the UK but is very prevalent here (the EU formally scoffed at the UK for its plaintiff-friendly libel venue).
In the words of fellow journalists in Asia, all those lawsuits typically mean one is effective; those who are not very effective (and ineffective) are not "worth" lawsuits; of course this won't stop the reporting and generally isn't going to scare, as it's a testament to the effect or overall impact. They just try to "taste blood" or scare us (even with burner accounts which issue anonymous threats to us), but this can only ever backfire. In many ways it legitimises and emboldens the embattled.
Last night we shed light on what we are allowed to say and what we're not allowed to say. The text is very clear about the scope and imputations thereof; we must respect that text and we always respect that text. We comply fully. But that does not mean that we cannot show what we told the Court - litigation transparency is paramount and our barrister urged us to write about it as never before (according to him) did he see such outrageous cases, not just from the US but also funded by rich third parties (to attack people in the UK - i.e. another continent - an inquisition by proxy). If it is about the depth of one's pockets, then justice is illusive, elusive and outcomes can - in effect - be bought (with GAFAM money from the US, including military/defence budget; Garrett ran out of money a long time ago and was unable to pay his lawyers - a core point we formally conveyed to the Court in July 2025).
A lot of "embarrassing facts" will come out soon. Trying to censor us by physical threats can, at best, result in us reporting the matter to the police, as we last did a few months back. █