207 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xtr 1 Aug 2022 \ on: Wright v McCormack judgement bitcoin
It's fucked that one can be found guilty for defamation even though the statement was false (i.e. he isn't satoshi). The UK is effectively saying that you can proclaim to be anyone you want and if anyone challenges that, it's defamation.
Nice to see that he only needs to pay Craig 5000 sats though.
write
preview
52 sats \ 1 reply \ @MKZI 2 Aug 2022 freebie
I believe this was a purposeful decision by the judge.
A “win” for £1 ensures that CSW can’t appeal, and continue to drag Peter through the courts which would bring him further financial hardship.
This ends the case and now the ball is in Peter’s court - as he could potentially counter-sue to recoup his legal costs if he desired.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xtr 2 Aug 2022
Good point!
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @ClickForCharity 2 Aug 2022
This fits in with the idea that someone can choose their personal pronouns and it's an offense to get them wrong.
reply
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @orthzar 1 Aug 2022
Perhaps one could claim to be the real Craig S. Wright and sue him for defaming oneself through years spent making the absurd claim of being Satoshi Nakamoto.
reply
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 2 Aug 2022
Like a hermit crab.
reply