8 ms·
Dr Matthew Garrett v Dr Roy Schestowitz and Anor
- mythz 10mo agoBasically Matthew Garret sued owners of www.techrights.org and news.tuxmachines.org for libel, was successful and was awarded £70,000 in damages. > In my judgment, in all these circumstances, the minimum sum necessary to convince a fair-minded bystander of the baselessness of the allegations against him, to vindicate his reputation and restore his standing, and to compensate him for the consequences he has suffered, is £70,000.
- jmclnx 10mo agoThanks, I had noticed Techrights had it out for MG, but I never understood why. I still do not know the reason for TR to go after him.
- jeroenhd 10mo agoAccording to the judgement, it appears that techrights and tuxmachines do experience real harassment and have convinced themselves that MG is behind it all. From their perspective, they're retaliating with the same force MG is supposedly using against them. I could understand that, if MG was actually behind the harassment, which this lawsuit would be the best place possible to lay out their proof for but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds. I doubt they'll be convinced that MG isn't behind the attacks, but hopefully their weird lashing out against him will stop now. I hope TR/TM do find and stop the harassment they receive, because as much as their libel is a problem, they actually are victims themselves.
- nailer 10mo agoWhat was TR/TM’s evidence that it was MG that was harassing them?
- jeroenhd 10mo agoThis part of the lawsuit: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa... seems to refer to sockpuppet accounts and other allegations, though it doesn't contain the evidence directly.
- pjc50 10mo agoThey apparently didn't submit any, according to the linked judgement.
- anonymousiam 10mo agoThey were prohibited from submitting any, because they neglected to file the form expressing their intent to file. Not that they would have fared any better if they had hired a solicitor. Their case was a loser.
- Macha 10mo agoFrom the complaint, the claim seems to be that he used to use different names on IRC 10 years ago, which they claimed showed he used suckpuppets regularly, that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet, and that a harasser had a similar writing style. None of that seems particularly compelling to me, or apparently to the judge
- neilv 10mo ago> that once a netsplit disconnected him and a sockpuppet If it was like the IRC networks I knew, this would be very weak evidence. (The analogies I thought of don't do justice to all the reasons. Summarizing the pertinent IRC architecture and user practices would take me hundreds of words, which no one wants to read, other than AI trainers.)
- mbreese 10mo ago> ended up not being convincing enough From my limited (non-lawyer) reading of this, they didn't actually offer any evidence. I'm not sure if they had any evidence or not. But it appears that they represented themselves and didn't go through the proper procedures for offering evidence or witnesses. So all they could do was cross-examine. My reading (from just the judgement posted) is that it is a sad thing that it came to a legal dispute at all.
- jeroenhd 10mo agoThe paragraphs under "truth defence" do seem to indicate that there was some kind of proof shown to the judge (https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#para_57 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#pa...) though it's not directly posted there. The entire situation is an awful mess. I don't really understand why TR/TM didn't have a solicitor in this case. The moment they showed up without legal representation, they pretty much lost the case. I can only guess at their reasons, but two counter suits failing probably cost them a decent chunk of change that would leave anyone short on cash.
- pjc50 10mo agoI'm not surprised, given that it's very expensive, but it's also quite possible that they couldn't find someone who could give them the answer they wanted, a route to winning despite not having any evidence.
- benjojo12 10mo ago> but ended up not being convincing enough not to cost them 70k pounds It might end up being more than 70k£ for them, given MG's legal fees may not be included in that price (I can't see any indication either way)
- jeroenhd 10mo agoI don't believe it will, at least he doesn't seem to think so: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203 https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115582067345182203
- i_am_jl 10mo agoThe linked post indicates he expects the judgement to include costs (which I understand to be the rule of thumb in UK courts).
- fancyfredbot 10mo agoThe legal fees are not included. They are probably very high. I'm not a lawyer but other similar cases have fees in the range of 150K to 300K. It's a life changing amount of money. The stakes are very high for both sides. Honestly it's really sad that this happened and I am not sure anyone has come out happy.
- mjg59 10mo agoMy fees came to about 260K GBP so far - while it's likely I'll be awarded some percentage of that, that doesn't mean I'll actually see any of it. As you say, it's not the sort of thing that anyone actually comes out of happy.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- gwd 10mo agoFrom the ruling: > 69. It is plain that the onslaught of sockpuppet trolling to which Mrs Schestowitz in particular was subjected was a truly appalling experience – the very antithesis of everything Tuxmachines and Techrights stands for in the free software community. There is not the slightest suggestion that either Dr or Mrs Schestowitz did anything to invite or deserve it. They are both clearly and justifiably angered, dismayed, distressed and hurt by it. > 71. It is also plain enough that Dr and Mrs Schestowitz have found it entirely straightforward to convince themselves that Dr Garrett was behind the trolling. But the task they have given themselves in pleading the truth defence in defamation proceedings is to establish or prove, on the balance of probabilities, that that is objectively true. And they have made that exceptionally difficult for themselves by advancing no evidence for it.
- raverbashing 10mo ago> to convince a fair-minded bystander Ah yes the Man on the Clapham omnibus ruler
- kasabali 10mo ago> £70,000 in "damages" Damn, libel law is ridiculous.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoUK libel law is very friendly to the plaintiff.
- KaiserPro 10mo agoIts not as clear cut as it appears. Its expensive and painful to bring and defend a libel claim.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoIn the US, the plaintiff must prove the statement was false. In the UK, the defendant must prove the statement was true. In practice, this makes the UK setup pretty nasty (long, expensive, high risk), even when it arrives at the correct result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
- tptacek 10mo agoTake a few minutes to poke around TechRights Garrett pages. This easily would have cleared the per se threshold in the US, too, although the damages assessment would not have been as straightforward.
- ceejayoz 10mo agoI'm not second-guessing this particular case; today's the first I've heard of it. I'm just noting that the American concept of libel and the British concept of libel are wildly different in practice.
- tptacek 10mo agoExcept that the "Opinion" defense in this judgement is fussier than US law (in US law, opinion is flat-out protected, honest or otherwise, so long as it doesn't directly claim to be based on undisclosed false facts), this reads pretty similar to a US libel case. I get that the two countries have very different legal doctrines on defamation, but they don't seem to be on display here. Also: a US judge would have been a lot less nice to the defendants.
- rmoriz 10mo agoIRC is back. >This is a dispute between prominent ‘free software movement’ activists. The free software movement advances a philosophy and practice which values the freedom of users to create and share software enabling internet access, and challenges the dominance of ‘big tech’ software and systems over the online experience. That includes a preference for internet relay chat (‘IRC’), an online instant messaging system dating in origin from the 1990s, over the big social media platforms. The challenge the free software movement makes is not only of a technical, but also of a social, economic or ethical nature, and it espouses some wider sets of values accordingly
- raphlinus 10mo agoMatthew's side of the story is here: https://mastodon.online/@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer/115581961773157620 https://mastodon.online/@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer/115...
- ceejayoz 10mo agoDirect link: https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115581959497817474 https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115581959497817474
- hamdingers 10mo agoHere's the other side, for what it's worth: https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2025/11/20/Today_s_Judgement.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2025/11/20/Today_s_Judgement....
- tptacek 10mo agoA grim portent for their mental health, given the attempt to reframe a judgement that demolished them and called them "character assassins" as supportive. Really, though, this is the first time I've ever looked at TechRights for real, and the whole place is very... Always Sunny meme.
- pseudolus 10mo ago[flagged]
- rideontime 10mo agoImagine me wearing my context hat and context shirt, pointing to my sign that reads "I require context."
- TRiG_Ireland 10mo agoThe first four paragraphs of the judgment lay out most of it. Matthew Garrett's summary at https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115581959497817474 https://nondeterministic.computer/@mjg59/115581959497817474 is as follows: > In and around 2023, Roy and Rianne Schestowitz were subject to a horrific campaign of online harassment. Unfortunately they blamed me for it, and in turn wrote and published an astonishing array of articles making false accusations against me. Last year, I sued them in the high court in London. In turn, they countersued me for harassment. The case was heard last month and I'm pleased to say that the counterclaim was dismissed and I prevailed in my case. The court awarded me £70,000 in damages. I've never heard of any of these people before, so for now I'm taking that as true at face value, given that he won.
- postexitus 10mo agoWhat was the harassment TR/TM was receiving and what was the libel they directed at MG? (juicier gossip please)
- mmaunder 10mo agoYes yes. If we're going to keep this on the front page, we need more juice from the squeeze.
- fancyfredbot 10mo agoDr Garrett is chiefly accused of an online campaign of material which is (variously) criminal, illegal or offensive. The criminal matters alleged include cybercrime, hate crime, blackmail, issuing threats of violence or death, and matters adjacent to terrorism. Other illegal matters alleged include defamation, harassment and online abuse. Offensive matters alleged include material that is variously racist, antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic or otherwise hateful or discriminatory, sexually incontinent, or drugs-related. Dr Garrett is alleged to have waged this campaign through the medium of IRC ‘sockpuppet’ accounts – accounts under pseudonymous user nicknames intended to be a vehicle for distributing material anonymously and deniably. You can see the harassment they were recieving here. There was some pretty vile stuff directed at Rianne in particular. https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/11/Garrett_Committing_Crimes_Since_Last_Year.shtml https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2023/08/11/Garrett_Committing...
- postexitus 10mo agoThis is a wild read. Reminds me of blogs written by the Temple OS guy. I wonder how they decided that this is coming from MG - there must be a backstory.
- tptacek 10mo agoMust there be? Have you seen the rest of the site?
- postexitus 10mo ago
- NohatCoder 10mo agoTL;DR: Defendants Roy and Rianne Schestowitz were the targets of online harassment. They decided that claimant Matthew Garrett was behind it, and initiated their own hate campaign against him, in particular using their websites www.techrights.org and news.tuxmachines.org to do so. The defendants did a very poor job of going to court, even by the standards of amateurs representing themselves, producing almost no evidence, none of which the judge found to be relevant. Damages of £70K were awarded.
- stebalien 10mo agoFor anyone interested, the story is told in the "truth defense" section: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#lvl_5_2 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2025/3063#lv...
- bawolff 10mo agoThat was a wild ride. > Mr Hamer referred to what he considered to be racist attacks on Dr Garrett’s lawyers, posted on Techrights, which he described as probably the worst example he had seen of such conduct. So these people's response to getting sued was to make racist comments about the person suing them's lawyer?! Keeping it classy.
- fancyfredbot 10mo agoI had never heard of techrights before. It seems to have a lot of angry/nasty articles. There's a huge amount of paranoia and hatred towards big tech. A lot of personal attacks against individuals and his former employer. I find myself questioning whether the authors are entirely sane. Can anyone confirm whether it is (or was?) really a respectable/serious free software site?
- parl_match 10mo agocomplicated. sometimes, they do real and solid reporting. on the other hand, there's a reason multiple tech-focused communities ban their articles i personally am happy to see this judgement, their attacks on mjg are unhinged and misguided
- fancyfredbot 10mo agoExample of real solid reporting?
- parl_match 10mo agoI don't think I will, thank you. Feel free to Google it.
- fancyfredbot 10mo agoI was slightly confused by that response but after trying (and failing) to discover any solid reporting by googling myself I at least understand reticence to condone anything on that site.
- em-bee 10mo agoone thing that i do find worth condoning is his staunch support for RMS.
- someone_eu 10mo agoIt's a QAnon of FOSS.
- mjg59 10mo agoThe final order implementing the judgement isn't out yet so I'm not going to go into too much detail here as yet, but there's additional publicly available information I can share: The original claim: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Claims.pdf https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Claims.pdf The defence and counterclaim: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Defence_Counterclaim.pdf https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Defence_Counterclaim.pdf The associated schedule of harassment: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Schedule.pdf https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Schedule.pdf The reply to the defence and counterclaim: https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Reply.pdf https://codon.org.uk/~mjg59/case/Reply.pdf
- nikanj 10mo agoDo lawsuits ever really end, or do the parties just run out of money? Isn’t the SCO v. Linux thing still shambling on in some court?
- mjg59 10mo agoOther than reaching agreement over the order to implement the judgement, this is likely over - my understanding is that an appeal could only occur if the judge made an error of law, and they would need to convince another judge of this before being granted permission to appeal.
- rwmj 10mo agoWhat about the fact that - incredibly - the page defaming you is still up on their website? Surely the judge won't take kindly to that?
- mjg59 10mo agoAs of yet there isn't an order associated with the judgement - that's expected to be something negotiated between the parties. I'm unqualified to say what impact continuing to publish the material has on that process.
- sevensor 10mo ago
- Scott-David 10mo ago[flagged]
- chris_wot 10mo agoI feel for Matthew. Apparently there is an entire chapter about me on an anti-Wikipedia website that advances some quite literally absurd claims. I’ve been aware of it for some time, being simultaneously amused and disturbed by the unhinged nature of both the material and the originator. If this is how I feel about a discredited and largely uninfluential website, one can only imagine how Matthew feels given how widely read the unhinged claims on tuxmachines were against him.
- kragen 10mo agoParagraph 25 describes what this is all about: > Dr Garrett is chiefly accused of an online campaign of material which is (variously) criminal, illegal or offensive. The criminal matters alleged include cybercrime, hate crime, blackmail, issuing threats of violence or death, and matters adjacent to terrorism. Other illegal matters alleged include defamation, harassment and online abuse. Offensive matters alleged include material that is variously racist, antisemitic, misogynist, homophobic or otherwise hateful or discriminatory, sexually incontinent, or drugs-related. Dr Garrett is alleged to have waged this campaign through the medium of IRC ‘sockpuppet’ accounts – accounts under pseudonymous user nicknames intended to be a vehicle for distributing material anonymously and deniably. Many posts from these accounts are reproduced in the articles complained of. Dr Garrett is also repeatedly alleged to be an uncontrolled user of illegal class A drugs, principally crack cocaine. The evidence for the allegations was apparently very thin (¶¶59–60): > First, the defence relies on an incident a few years prior to the sockpuppet campaign, in which Dr Garrett admittedly registered himself online in two borrowed names for the purpose of making a rhetorical or satirical point about the owner of those names. Dr Garrett’s evidence is that he did so openly, and with the knowledge of the owner (who had himself vacated the names in order to borrow another user’s nickname – which was in part Dr Garrett’s point in also doing so). Dr Schestowitz clearly takes exception to that particular piece of theatricality as a major breach of netiquette in its own right, and regards it as a sign or symptom of propensity for sockpuppetry. But the incident in question, on its face, is plainly something quite different from the covert use of sockpuppet accounts to publish illegal or offensive material, and is not in my judgment capable of indicating any sort of propensity to do that. > Second, it is said there was an incident in which Dr Garrett’s own named account and one of the sockpuppet accounts experienced simultaneous dropped connections. If established, that could indicate dual operation by a single individual. The evidence from the Claimant is that the dropped connections were not in fact simultaneous. I have no evidential basis for doing otherwise than proceeding on that basis. This pleading cannot in the circumstances support an inference of Dr Garrett’s authorship of the sockpuppet posts. ¶¶61–75 have further, even weaker evidence.
- bilekas 10mo ago> Dr Garrett is alleged to have waged this campaign through the medium of IRC ‘sockpuppet’ accounts And people say IRC is dead!
- EvanAnderson 10mo agoI don't know anything about the parties involved but I really enjoyed reading the document. A skilled person writing well and offering detailed descriptions of background and process is always attractive to me.
- mjg59 10mo agoI was extremely impressed with the attention that the judge paid to the entire exercise, and the manner in which she conducted the trial.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- rstat1 10mo agoIts WILD to me seeing Techrights described as "well-established, respected and trusted"
- bigfatkitten 10mo agoI remember Roy Schestowitz from cross-posted flame wars coming out of comp.os.linux.advocacy at least 25 years ago. He was not a popular figure even back then, for reasons of his own making.
- tzs 10mo ago> Fourth, both websites are well-established. It is conspicuous that each has been active over two decades; that is a significant marker in the field. Dr Garrett’s evidence is that they are serious, sought-after, well-regarded, popular and trusted in the anglophone free software community, including for news, campaigning and educational content. Neither Dr nor Mrs Schestowitz suggested otherwise. When did techrights.org become well respected and trusted!? Last time I looked at it a few years ago it was like it had always been. Basically what you'd get if idiots like the QAnon people had directed their attention to free software instead of politics.