High Court: "No, you may not publish your memoir about sexual abuse as a child."

Status
Not open for further replies.

aruna

On a wing and a prayer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
12,862
Reaction score
2,846
Location
A Small Town in Germany
Website
www.sharonmaas.co.uk
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...the-law-can-punish-the-innocent-10273617.html

This story left me stunned. How can this be right? The book was commissioned by Cannongate and ready to go to print.

Further, in addition to pulling the book, there was to be a potentially indefinite gagging order imposed that would stop me from speaking or writing in any medium anywhere in the world about the following:
1. Graphic and detailed accounts of the sexual abuse I had suffered and the lasting harm it had caused me (physical, emotional and mental);
2. Accounts of my serious mental health issues as an adult (including periods of treatment as an in-patient);
3. Details of my treatment for those mental health issues;
4. Accounts of my self-harming;
5. Accounts of my suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts.
It was made clear that my past history of sexual abuse and mental illness was so abhorrent, shameful and “toxic” (their word) that it should never be talked about except privately with close friends; and that, as far as the world at large was concerned, my past should in effect cease to exist.

Luckily there was a happy end for the book ... but what a hassle, and what an expense, for nothing! And for the author, the end wasn't so happy:
Before all this started, I was happier than I had been in years. I was engaged to the woman of my dreams, fulfilled in my career and friendships. I smiled at people on the Tube, and woke up excited at life. By the time of the final court hearing, I was on anti-schizophrenic medication, with a shot immune system and an adrenal system on its knees. My Twitter and Facebook feeds were being monitored round the clock and anything the opposing lawyers felt was inappropriate (a generic tweet about free speech after the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, for example) led to instant threatening letters demanding their deletion.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,079
Reaction score
10,775
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This does seem bizarre. I can see a gag order being imposed on behalf of the accused molester, if there had been some kind of settlement where that was part of the deal, or if the case was still pending. I can see family members maybe being able to do this if they themselves were involved, and if the case is still pending or unsubstantiated, at least with regards to naming names (libel and slander laws).

But how can someone completely uninvolved in the case (an ex wife) who didn't even know this man when he was victimized bring a case on behalf of a person who didn't even exist (his son) when he was victimized? That makes no sense at all and seems a violation of free speech at the very least. The precedent is appalling--members of families that don't believe in public discussion of painful matters can restrict a person's speech about a traumatic event or mental illness, even if they themselves were completely uninvolved.

I don't think this ruling could happen in the US, but clearly the UK doesn't have the same laws as we do in this regard.
 
Last edited:

Bolero

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
106
Location
UK
UK law is complex, involves a lot of precedent and there is no underlying overarching constitution like there is in the US. If you read the full article, you can see that the initial ruling against him was finally over-ruled. But sometimes it seems to be a game of finding old laws and applying them in a new way - which is what it looks like was done here. Cases like this can finish in front of the law lords - and they rule on points of law. As I understand it from documentaries, it is not about whether it is fair or right, but what the law says. And there is a massive amount of it going back centuries. I think that the law lords and senior judges can also make comments about their judgement - along the lines of we have to rule this way because it is the law but.....
Also, in cases like this, when a new precedent may be established to the detriment of many, you get bodies with an interest joining in, helping with the cost (as happened).
And new laws can be passed and old laws struck off the books - takes a bit of doing but where laws are clearly out of date, big loop holes, considerable unfairness, things do get changed. Not immediately but it does happen.

I'm no expert, mostly know things from documentaries and seeing the news, so someone may be along shortly to give a better comment.
 
Last edited:

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
We do tend to like to cast people as either heroes or villains, don't we? There doesn't seem to be room for anything in between. It's black or white, good guy or bad guy, saint or sinner.

I think (hope) we would all agree that the author has rights. He has rights to tell his story within the legal definition of freedom of speech. Although it's a moot point now, he should have had a right not to have been abused in the first place.

But the people around him also have rights. His ex-wife believed that she had a right to protect their son from material in his book. We can't really comment on that without having read the book, or knowing the background. But in principle she might have a point. The UK does not have an unlimited freedom of speech - we also have laws to protect people from the impact of other people's freedom of speech.

This is an instance where one person's rights appear to overlap and contradict someone else's. And that is what we have a legal system for - to listen to both sides fairly and impartially and to come to a reasoned judgment.

The ex wife took the case to court, as she has every right to do. She sought an appeal against the original judgment - again as she has every right to do. While the case was proceeding, this author was not allowed to release information about the case, which is a perfectly understandable and reasonable thing for the court to do.

So where is the scandal? Two differing points of view were considered by the legal system and a decision made. We can't possibly comment on the rights and wrongs because we haven't heard the evidence or read the book.

What I dislike about this story (and many like it) is that people are so quick to form a judgment about right and wrong when they don't understand the full facts of the case.

A terrible thing happened to this author as a child and he is asserting his right to tell the world about it. But it is a little disquieting that his arguments are all about his rights and the inconvenience and pain he is suffering. I don't detect much thought about what his son might be going through, or why his ex-wife brought the action in the first place.

The law is simply doing what the law is there to do - weighing up two opposing views and coming to a decision.
 

Pony.

Aspiring supervillain
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
3,563
Reaction score
194
One thing i noticed reading the article he mentioned that opposing lawyers had contacted him directly, over here thats something of a no-no. If he had representation communication should have gone through them. Over here he could have a case for undue and intentional emotional distress and harm. Plaintiff lawyers have no standing to police his actions. If they notice something questionable they should have alerted the court and then defense lawyers and the court should enforce the injunction.
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
As sympathetic as I am to the author, I have to agree with Once! in general. The problem was not the legal system; it did exactly what it was meant to do - heard both sides and made a decision. And unfortunately, ridiculous and retaliatory lawsuits are pursued in the US as well, and obscure and outdated (but still on the books) laws are also used in the US to further one's cause. As I read through the article, I kept watching for the outrageous actions of the government or courts, to see how on earth they could stop this book - and then got to the end to find out that the system had indeed done its job and the book was published. I can understand his reaction and frustrations (stress and mental illnesses do not work well together) but the system worked.
 
Last edited:

Bolero

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
106
Location
UK
Thank you to Once! and Shadowwalker - very clear statements with which on reflection I completely agree.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
As sympathetic as I am to the author, I have to agree with Once! in general. The problem was not the legal system; it did exactly what it was meant to do - heard both sides and made a decision. And unfortunately, ridiculous and retaliatory lawsuits are pursued in the US as well, and obscure and outdated (but still on the books) laws are also used in the US to further one's cause. As I read through the article, I kept watching for the outrageous actions of the government or courts, to see how on earth they could stop this book - and then got to the end to find out that the system had indeed done its job and the book was published. I can understand his reaction and frustrations (stress and mental illnesses do not work well together) but the system worked.

If the system worked, none of this would have happened. When the system abuses an individual, when a system costs them thousands of dollars, plus a lot of time, it is not working just because it eventually reaches the right decision. Thinking that it does work is why we have so many abuses of power. For a system to work, it must leave the innocent alone, and reach the right decision before abusing anyone. This is not difficult. It is, unfortunately, certain to mean a lot of people won't make any money off the abuses.
 

Underdawg47

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
415
Reaction score
42
Location
Federal Way Washington
I hate censorship of any kind. If a person had been abused as a child, he should have the right to tell the world in detail what he had to endure. Being told that you can't tell anyone is just more abuse for the victim. If his ex wife doesn't want her son to read the book, then that is her responsibility to keep it from his eyes. If the son wants, he can read the book once he becomes an adult. I don't see a problem here. The world is full of evil and ugly to hear about, but hiding the truth is not the answer.
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
If the system worked, none of this would have happened. When the system abuses an individual, when a system costs them thousands of dollars, plus a lot of time, it is not working just because it eventually reaches the right decision. Thinking that it does work is why we have so many abuses of power. For a system to work, it must leave the innocent alone, and reach the right decision before abusing anyone. This is not difficult. It is, unfortunately, certain to mean a lot of people won't make any money off the abuses.

You seem to be thinking that it was "The System" that tried to prevent publication. It was not. It was his ex-wife. The courts cannot decide who can bring a suit - only if the suit has merit (which in this case, it was decided at the very beginning it did not). Once that obscure law was brought into play by the ex-wife's attorneys, the courts had to hear their arguments and make a new determination - which they did.

For the system to work, it must hear both sides of the story and then determine who "the innocent" party is. That's what makes it so difficult for many to understand - there is no pre-determination as to who the innocent are, regardless of blogs or headlines.
 

Ravioli

Crazy Cat Lady
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
423
Location
Germany, native Israeli
Website
annagiladi.wixsite.com
I can't believe a person is stopped by the high court from telling their story, because someone uninvolved - who as such should have no rights to the matter other than having an opinion - is feeling butthurt. Boohoo sensitivities, it ain't her story.

THAT is the scandal. That I cannot tell my story because someone thinks their uninvolved ass should have a say in my biography, and that the high court agrees with said uninvolved ass. If the kid can't deal with it, boohoo again. None of anyone's business but the author's and the perpetrator's. Now victims can't speak freely about what happened to them anymore? Wonderful. Let's shut down half the internet because people whose business it ain't, might get uncomfy.
 

Lillith1991

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
569
Location
MA
Website
eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
I can't believe a person is stopped by the high court from telling their story, because someone uninvolved - who as such should have no rights to the matter other than having an opinion - is feeling butthurt. Boohoo sensitivities, it ain't her story.

THAT is the scandal. That I cannot tell my story because someone thinks their uninvolved ass should have a say in my biography, and that the high court agrees with said uninvolved ass. If the kid can't deal with it, boohoo again. None of anyone's business but the author's and the perpetrator's. Now victims can't speak freely about what happened to them anymore? Wonderful. Let's shut down half the internet because people whose business it ain't, might get uncomfy.

Uh, they ruled in the guy's favor the first time. Of course they're going to say the book can't be published during the time they're actually hearing the case, because the book is the issue in question. The ex-wife executed a legal but assholish right, and it was their duty to determine whether she had legal standing to do so. It ain't their fault her and her lawyer tried for a second time and used an obscure law to back themselves up.
 

Ravioli

Crazy Cat Lady
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2015
Messages
2,699
Reaction score
423
Location
Germany, native Israeli
Website
annagiladi.wixsite.com
Uh, they ruled in the guy's favor the first time. Of course they're going to say the book can't be published during the time they're actually hearing the case, because the book is the issue in question. The ex-wife executed a legal but assholish right, and it was their duty to determine whether she had legal standing to do so. It ain't their fault her and her lawyer tried for a second time and used an obscure law to back themselves up.
Okay I admit I find the article very confusing. What right was it again that the ex-wife executed? Because I've never heard anyone being able to put a lid on other peoples' stories.
 

Lillith1991

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
569
Location
MA
Website
eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Okay I admit I find the article very confusing. What right was it again that the ex-wife executed? Because I've never heard anyone being able to put a lid on other peoples' stories.

The right to protect her child of course. A parent in Brittain can apparently bring a case against someone if they feel something the person is doing will bring harm to their child or has harmed their child. Since the author in question is the child's father and had already spoke extensively about his experience prior to getting the book deal, the mother was able to say that the book on top of everything else would in some way harm him.

Let me make this very clear. Much as I feel for him and all the stress this has caused him. The ex-wife has the right to do this. It is an asshole thing for her to do, but she has the right. Kids of parents famous for being victims of the kind of thing this guy is the victim of or of murder, there's no way to sheild them completely from all the asses in the world who would use what happened to their parent to harm them. We don't know if his son was already being asked questions or threatened in regards to things involving his father, and we can only speculate on what prompted the insane reaction by the ex-wife. But we do know that the court felt it had enough merit to be heard, and part of that merit was him being the boys dad. The case wouldn't have made it to the hearing stage otherwise.

And in the end, the man won both times and the court was seemingly disgusted by what the ex was trying to do.
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
Because I've never heard anyone being able to put a lid on other peoples' stories.

Well, actually, they do it all the time in cases of libel. This wasn't the case here, of course, but you've lived a very sheltered life if you'd never heard of it. And, again, they were not able to put a lid on it, except during the time it was being adjudicated. ie, not prevented, only postponed.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
Okay I admit I find the article very confusing. What right was it again that the ex-wife executed? Because I've never heard anyone being able to put a lid on other peoples' stories.

The trick, as usual, is to try to see both sides of the story. We don't yet know the full details as we have only heard his side. The ex-wife's account hasn't yet come out, and may never come out. So can we construct an explanation for the ex-wife's point of view where we might have some sympathy for her?

What if the book is especially graphic, it is being published under the man's real name and his son is very young, let's say of school age? The ex-wife could be worried that the son would be teased at school, for example. Or that he might read things about his father which could upset him. For all we know, the author might use his story to talk about his relationship with his son and/or ex-wife. They may be characters in this story. And we all have rights not to be libeled or slandered. We also have a right to be protected from harm.

I don't know. None of us do. We are just guessing. All we have seen is a very angry blog post from the author who seems to have difficulty in seeing the other side of the argument.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
If the system worked, none of this would have happened. When the system abuses an individual, when a system costs them thousands of dollars, plus a lot of time, it is not working just because it eventually reaches the right decision. Thinking that it does work is why we have so many abuses of power. For a system to work, it must leave the innocent alone, and reach the right decision before abusing anyone. This is not difficult. It is, unfortunately, certain to mean a lot of people won't make any money off the abuses.

And how does the legal system know who is innocent without hearing evidence? That evidence unfortunately costs money to collect and present to a court, but that's how the legal system works. Individuals are allowed to bring actions against each other.

The system hasn't abused anyone. It has done what it is supposed to do.
 

Emily Winslow

Do Not Walk on the Grass
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
634
Reaction score
94
Location
Cambridge, England
Website
www.emilywinslow.com
What if the book is especially graphic, it is being published under the man's real name and his son is very young, let's say of school age? The ex-wife could be worried that the son would be teased at school, for example. Or that he might read things about his father which could upset him.

I don't follow this at all. You might as well be saying that no parent should be allowed to be a public figure in case their kids might be teased or made uncomfortable. So... no parent can run for office? No parent can become famous acting in a film or on TV? Protest something? Keep a blog? Give me a break. "Your kid might be teased because of your public life" is not in any way legitimate legal grounds. We are all allowed to embarrass ourselves. Having a kid does not require someone to pretend to be neutral and inoffensive. If something is legal for a childless person, it's legal for a parent. Parents are still, first and foremost, their own people.

I understand that the court eventually agreed, but I'm shocked that the suit was even allowed to get that far.

For all we know, the author might use his story to talk about his relationship with his son and/or ex-wife. They may be characters in this story. And we all have rights not to be libeled or slandered. We also have a right to be protected from harm.

That is the only reason they should have any grounds at all. If that's what's going on, I wish it were more specifically described in the media, because that's an interesting point. What makes a story belong to one person over someone else?

I have now found more information:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-judgment.pdf

From the supreme court judgment linked above:
A first draft of the book was sent to the publishers in December 2013. In
February 2014 it was leaked to the mother and some changes were made as a result,
including the use of pseudonyms for mother and child. The mother did not consider
that those changes had gone far enough....The causes of action alleged were misuse of private information,negligence and the intentional infliction of harm.

Later, the first two, misuse of private information and negligence, were negated by the court, leaving only intentional infliction of harm:

The child’s appeal was heard in August 2014 and judgment given in October:[2014] EWCA Civ 1277. The Court of Appeal held that there was no claim in misuseof private information or in negligence, but that the claim for intentionally causingharm should go for trial.

And the crux of that claim:

The mother has filed a report from Dr Christine Tizzard, a consultant child
psychologist who interviewed the child in June 2014. Her opinion was that he “is
likely to suffer severe emotional distress and psychological harm in the event that
he is exposed to the material in the publication”....In her view, the information
in the book would be inappropriate for any 11 year old child to read and have access
to, but it would be even more devastating for this child, because of his difficulties in
processing information.

Of course an 11 year old shouldn't be reading books with graphic depictions of rape, his father's or anyone else's. Was the mother planning to give him a copy? Is she claiming that the mere fact of its publication makes him reading it inevitable? When he's an adult he may well choose to read it, but I don't understand how an eleven year old would, supposedly inevitably, find himself reading this book in the first place.

Might he? Of course. Should we burn all adult books because a child *might* read them?

Many authors of, for example, erotic novels have children. E L James (Fifty Shades of Grey) has two teenaged sons. My crime novels are not appropriate for my nine-year-old to read. Should all parents of minor children be prevented from publishing anything but children's books?

Ah, here they agree that it is unlikely for him to read it:

Both parties accept that it is most unlikely that the child will come intopossession of the book itself. The publishers plan to publish it in hard copy in theUK and much of the rest of the English-speaking world, and to retail it in shops andon-line, but there are no plans at present to publish it in the USA.

(That's a shame about the USA. There is a detailed description of the structure of the book and it sounds really interesting, especially as it relates to music and his musical career.)

The father accepts that knowing what happened to him would upset andembarrass the child, but not that it will be harmful if dealt with in the right way andat the right time.

Agreed.

The mother is concerned that the child whois proud of his father, has “googled” him in the past. If he did so in future he wouldbe likely to come across reviews and references to the book.

So here we see pretty clearly that it's the content of the story, the revelation of the abuse itself, that is her main concern, not specific instances of the son being mentioned in the book.

And more here showing the same:

i) The book contained graphic descriptions of the abuse which theappellant had suffered and his incidents of self-harm.

ii) Those passages were likely to be quoted by reviewers or newspaperswho serialised the book.

iii) On the uncontradicted expert evidence those passages were likely tocause psychological harm to the claimant.

iv) The book was dedicated to the claimant and partly addressed to him.

v) The appellant knew of the risks posed to the claimant because of hisvulnerabilities and had for that reason subscribed to Recital K.

And the court response:


The book is for a wide audience and the question of justification has to beconsidered accordingly, not in relation to the claimant in isolation. In point of fact,the father’s case is that although the book is dedicated to the claimant, he would notexpect him to see it until he is much older. Arden LJ said that the father could notbe heard to say that he did not intend the book to reach the child, since it wasdedicated to him and some parts of it are addressed to him. We have only found onepassage addressed to him, which is in the acknowledgments, but morefundamentally we do not understand why the appellant may not be heard to say that the book is not intended for his eyes at this stage of his life.

Agree!

In sum:

Freedom to report the truth is a basic right to which the law gives a very highlevel of protection....It is difficult to envisage any circumstances inwhich speech which is not deceptive, threatening or possibly abusive, could giverise to liability in tort for wilful infringement of another’s right to personal safety.The right to report the truth is justification in itself. That is not to say that the rightof disclosure is absolute, for a person may owe a duty to treat information as privateor confidential. But there is no general law prohibiting the publication of facts whichwill cause distress to another.

Criticising the interim injunction:

The Court of Appeal recognised that the appellant had a right to tell his story,but they held for the purposes of an interlocutory injunction that it was arguablyunjustifiable for him to do so in graphic language. The injunction permitspublication of the book only in a bowdlerised version. This presents problems bothas a matter of principle and in the form of the injunction. As to the former, the book’srevelation of what it meant to the appellant to undergo his experience of abuse as achild, and how it has continued to affect him throughout his life, is communicatedthrough the brutal language which he uses. His writing contains dark descriptions ofemotional hell, self-hatred and rage, as can be seen in the extracts which we haveset out. The reader gains an insight into his pain but also his resilience andachievements. To lighten the darkness would reduce its effect. The court has taken editorial control over the manner in which the appellant’s story is expressed. A rightto convey information to the public carries with it a right to choose the language inwhich it is expressed in order to convey the information most effectively.

Even more emphatic:

The facts of this case are fully set out by Lady Hale and Lord Toulson inparas 1-30 above. I agree that the interlocutory injunction granted by the Court ofAppeal was flawed for two reasons. First, there should have been no injunction atall, because the claimant’s claim to restrain publication of the defendant’s book hadno prospects of success. Secondly, the terms of the injunction were flawed bothconceptually and procedurally.

I do think that it is morally important for authors to consider who will be affected by the publication of memoirs and the like. Consideration of these things, however, does not mean that someone else's potential distress automatically trumps everything else. It sounds like this author had considered his son, and considered him as a whole person who will one day be an adult.

The mother's view continues to confound me. According to the court documents, her main concern seems to be google results. Surely initiating this case has increased those results a hundredfold.
 
Last edited:

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
1,634
Age
59
Location
Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Or New Babbage, Second
Website
www.sherylnantus.com
The mother's view continues to confound me. According to the court documents, her main concern seems to be google results. Surely initiating this case has increased those results a hundredfold.

There might be a very good reason why she's the ex-wife.

As we've seen over the years, there's plenty of vindictive, angry ex-spouses that will do anything to manipulate the children and/or make the other spouse's life a living hell for no other reason other than the fact there *is* a divorce.

Sometimes there's no logic to these things at all.
 

Weirdmage

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
52
Location
South Yorkshire, UK
Like Once! has said, we do not knpw the full story here. Yet people are blaming a vindictive ex-wife for what has happened...I find that a bit uncomfortable.
I have read a bit about the cycle of abuse, were those that have been abused themselves become abusers. What if the book contains this man writing about how he had the urge to abuse his son at when he reached the age he himself was abused? What if that was the reason his wife divorced him, to protect the son?

The justice system has done its job. Perhaps we should try not to judge when we do not have the evidence that means we can do so from a position of knowledge...
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
Like Once! has said, we do not knpw the full story here. Yet people are blaming a vindictive ex-wife for what has happened...I find that a bit uncomfortable.
I have read a bit about the cycle of abuse, were those that have been abused themselves become abusers. What if the book contains this man writing about how he had the urge to abuse his son at when he reached the age he himself was abused? What if that was the reason his wife divorced him, to protect the son?

The justice system has done its job. Perhaps we should try not to judge when we do not have the evidence that means we can do so from a position of knowledge...

I feel like that would have been a major feature of the article if true, though.

Perhaps attacking the wife is untoward, but her suit seems pretty silly to me, legally. I can't imagine any suit of that sort being pursued successfully. Although the apparent dedication to the son did strike me as rather odd.
 

raelwv

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
260
Reaction score
33
Location
West Virginia
Website
www.jdbyrne.net
I feel like that would have been a major feature of the article if true, though.

To be hyper technical I wouldn't call this an "article." Rather, it's a feature piece written by one of the parties involved. In other words, it's not written by a third party who would have a responsibility to examine both sides.

Just something to keep in mind.
 

T Robinson

Born long ago, in a different era
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 22, 2013
Messages
1,282
Reaction score
212
Location
Southern USA
True Raelwv, but I think Emily did more research and did an excellent analysis of the case. I agree it may have started as a frivolous lawsuit and should have been resolved sooner. Citing a law from the 1800's for further appeal is a little much.
 

Emily Winslow

Do Not Walk on the Grass
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
634
Reaction score
94
Location
Cambridge, England
Website
www.emilywinslow.com
Like Once! has said, we do not knpw the full story here. Yet people are blaming a vindictive ex-wife for what has happened...I find that a bit uncomfortable.
I have read a bit about the cycle of abuse, were those that have been abused themselves become abusers. What if the book contains this man writing about how he had the urge to abuse his son at when he reached the age he himself was abused? What if that was the reason his wife divorced him, to protect the son?

The justice system has done its job. Perhaps we should try not to judge when we do not have the evidence that means we can do so from a position of knowledge...

Actually, the link I provided contains a very detailed account of the content of the book (as summarised by the court), which is not in dispute. In it, "he is kind about his wife...and hard upon himself" and expresses worry that his son may experience difficulty in life, as he had a difficult life. There is nothing in the suit alleging that he was going to hurt his son or describes anything of that nature. He describes his own suffering as a child and self-harm as an adult.

Here, I'll repeat this quote from above:

i) The book contained graphic descriptions of the abuse which theappellant had suffered and his incidents of self-harm.

ii) Those passages were likely to be quoted by reviewers or newspaperswho serialised the book.


iii) On the uncontradicted expert evidence those passages were likely tocause psychological harm to the claimant.

Her concern is clearly over descriptions of the author's childhood abuse and adult self-harm, not over any descriptions of the child himself.

Raelwv, while the original article was indeed not neutral, the court document is, and long too! I'm disconcerted that this conversation is flowing forward as if I'd never shared it. I have no problem with disagreement; I'm just befuddled by the claims that there is no information. There's actually lots.

Thanks, T Robinson, for noticing that my contribution exists...
 
Last edited:

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
I don't follow this at all.

...

I understand that the court eventually agreed, but I'm shocked that the suit was even allowed to get that far.

The mother's view continues to confound me. According to the court documents, her main concern seems to be google results. Surely initiating this case has increased those results a hundredfold.

The answers you are looking for are in the court judgement that you linked to. You now need to read that judgement seeing both sides of the story and not just picking out the bits that you agree with.

The mother brought this action to prevent what she saw as harm being done to a boy of 11 or 12. She didn't want to stop publication of the book. She wanted to remove her name and her son's name (which has been done) and to remove or tone down some passages. The court heard evidence about the potential harm that the book could do:

The mother has filed a report from Dr Christine Tizzard, a consultant childpsychologist who interviewed the child in June 2014. Her opinion was that he “islikely to suffer severe emotional distress and psychological harm in the event thathe is exposed to the material in the publication”

Their divorce included this agreement:

“And upon the parties agreeing to use their best endeavours to protectthe child from any information concerning the past previous history ofeither parent which would have a detrimental effect upon the child’swell-being”

So we are starting to get an appreciation of why the mother thinks the way she does. She is trying to protect a vulnerable 12 year old (now - he was 11 when she started the proceedings). Still confounded?

And yes the publicity around the case has increased, but not of her doing. She clearly felt that she had to bring the court case. The father has chosen to blog about it. One of the arguments was that the boy would not be able to find the book. I have to say I am unconvinced by that. Resourceful teenagers can usually get hold of things they are looking for. And it's not as if the book is the only thing that the child needs to be protected from. The father is already blogging about this - including the court case.

As to the legality, the judgement makes clear that this is not a straight-forward case. There is no unlimited right to free speech in UK Law. So the Supreme Court looked at case law and precedent. They decided that publication should be allowed. The key issue seems to be that the author had no intention of causing harm to his own son. It looks to be a good and thorough judgement - worth reading with open eyes.

When we look at the case in the round, surely we can find enough compassion in us to see all sides of the story? With the exception of the original abuser, we can feel some sympathy for everyone here.

Someone who has been abused wants to tell their story. He doesn't want his abuser to "win".

A mother wants to protect her child.

The law looks at all the evidence, weighs it against case law and precedent, and reaches a balanced and reasoned judgement. This judgement will itself form part of case law if similar actions are brought in the future.

There are two parts of this story that worry me and where I feel less sympathy. First, the father seems to be preoccupied with his own issues and does not seem to be taking account of the damage that could be done to his own son. Secondly, there a number of people who aren't seeing both sides of the story. They seem to want to have black and white heroes and villains.

This isn't a scandal. It isn't an instance where the "system" has failed us. It isn't an affront against freedom of speech - or a victory for freedom of speech. It's a sad little human tragedy where everyone gets hurt.

And I can't help feeling sorry that they weren't able to solve this through mediation rather than the courts. I would have hoped that a compassionate father could have negotiated suitable changes to the book or maybe to delay its publication until the child is older.

And that having won his court action, the father wouldn't write such an angry blog drawing attention to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.