h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Apropos of nothing at all...

Defamation is, according to the DNA help page, something that "harms [a] reputation by:
1. Exposing the individual or organisation to hatred, ridicule or contempt;

2. Causing the individual or organisation to be shunned or avoided;

3. Lowering the individual or organisation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society; or

4. Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade or the organisation's office, profession or trade.

OK.

Homosexuality is legal and widely accepted in society. High profile out homosexuals include Peter Mandelson, George Michael, the Bishop of New Hampshire, Sir Ian McKellen (SIR Ian... the Queen obviously has no problem with it) and many, many more.

Therefore, is it defamatory to suggest someone is gay? Let's check the tests:

1. "Exposing the individual ...to hatred, ridicule or contempt".

Well, homosexuals do face this sort of prejudice, it's true, but not from mainstream society, only from bigots. If you're going to use that test, it would be defamatory to suggest someone is black. The hatred exists, but not in the minds of right thinking people.

2. Causing the individual ...to be shunned or avoided;

Once again, homosexuals do sometimes face this from a small minority of people. But once again, one might equally say it's defamatory to suggest someone is a Tory - that'd certainly get you shunned or avoided in my home town.

3. Lowering the individual ...in the estimation of right-thinking members of society

Well, I think I've established that mere homosexuality definitely does NOT lower you in the minds of right thinking members of society. A couple of good examples here would be the Michael Portillo and Peter Mandelson. Both were "outed".

Now, it's true that Peter Mandelson's career suffered after that revelation - but not BECAUSE of it. Nobody suggested he should resign because he's gay - he had to go because he did other, rather more silly things. And he's practically back in any case.

Michael Portillo's career suffered, I think, after he admitted to homosexual experiences as a young man. However, that's because he chose a career where he was attempting to be popular among right-wing bigots. The dwindling, aging, prejudiced membership of the Tory party are hardly representative of "right-thinking members of society".

And so finally:

4. Disparaging the individual in their office, profession or trade...

Is there ANY "office, profession or trade" in which the sexuality of the practitioner is relevant?

One might perhaps think "movie star". If one's stock in trade was appearing in romantic comedies opposite attractive women, it might be damaging to have it suggested that one is gay. It never seemed to stop Rock Hudson, however. One crucial factor there is that he WAS gay. The truth is, of course, not defamation, however inconvenient.

The only ones I can think of are ones where the office itself is predicated on prejudice - specifically the Pope and other churchmen. It WOULD be defamatory to suggest the Pope is homosexual, because his office condemns the practice. Few positions are so rooted in backwardness, though. Even the Anglican church now has an openly gay bishop, so it is therefore no longer defamatory to suggest a bishop might be gay.

I am therefore interested to hear from any NON-bigots who can suggest a convincing reason why suggesting someone is gay might be considered defamatory.

(Jason Donovan successfully sued The Face magazine in the 1980s for an article which suggested he was gay. He was VERY careful to make clear his action was based on their accusation that he was a hypocrite for keeping it quiet, NOT for the suggestion itself. He won.)

Any thoughts?

Very well argued. I agree with you. I can't see why it would be defamatory at all.

Except, perhaps, if you were married or otherwise in a heterosexual relationship? You would be shunned by your partner for being a cheat (I assume you'd only have proof enough to suggest someone was gay if they'd been involved with a person of the same sex in some sexual way). Cheating on your partner would lower you in the esteem of right-thinking persons. But then, what if you had never cheated on your partner, but merely had feelings for people of your own gender? Well, if you'd not told your partner about that, even if you were faithful, would it be alright to shun you for a liar? Or think you were sensibly preserving your relationship? Which would indicate you thought your partner was a wee bit of a bigot. So they wouldn't be right-thinking. Or maybe they are, and the lie hurts them far far far far far more than the fact you quite fancy so-and-so off the telly. Personally, I wouldn't care if my partner did fancy Johnny Depp - I do myself - but I would be deeply deeply wounded if he never told me. On the same token, I'd expect him not to bat an eyelid if I confessed to having a 'thing' about Kate Winslet. But if he found out, and I hadn't told him, I'd expect him to be hurt.

So basically, if I can untangle myself from all that and try to work out what I conclude, I'm with Jason Donovan. It's not being accused of being gay that's defamatory, it' s being accused of being in the closet and telling lies.

Hang on, I've just thought of one. Say you are straight, and really fancy a person (of opposite gender, obviously) but said cutie has been told that you are gay, and therefore totally uninterested in you as they assume there's no chance of a relationship. Which would be 'causing you to be shunned or avoided' by a right-thinking person with no prejudice, who simply thinks that you won't be interested in them. Even if you knew why they weren't interested, would you then be able to convince them that you were really truly straight and not simply 'in denial'? Would doubts ever linger? Wouldn't that be defamatory?

None of which would be a problem if people weren't so 'coke-sniffing icepick-wielding crotch-flasher' about bisexual people....



I seem to have happily trotted into a bit of a minefield. Help!

well, you know the Pope could be gay


I'm thinking that to publicaly call someone gay, if they claim they are not, well if they felt defamed and took you to court they would have to prove that they're not gay. It all seems a bit silly really (not the thread, which is interesting, but the issue)

"Except, perhaps, if you were married or otherwise in a heterosexual relationship? You would be shunned by your partner for being a cheat "

Ah, but hang on... what if your current partner already KNEW you were a cheat?

What if your current partner was, say, a person with whom you had been carrying on a dishonest extra-marital affair for the entire time you'd been married to someone else?

What if you'd admitted to this affair on national television?

Surely then your public reputation is that of a known liar on matters of sexual probity?

In which case, not only is it NOT defamatory to suggest you're homosexual, for the reasons stated above.

It's NOT defamatory to suggest you'd lie about it.

Claiming defamation in such a case would be like Mike Tyson claiming it was defamatory to suggest he was a violent man. Everyone KNOWS he is. He has no "reputation" for non-violence to protect.

If you've taken steps to make sure EVERYONE with any interest and quite a few without KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt that you lie in public about your sex life - how can it be defamatory to say you lie about your sex life???

"Except, perhaps, if you were married or otherwise in a heterosexual relationship? You would be shunned by your partner for being a cheat "

Ah, but hang on... what if your current partner already KNEW you were a cheat?

What if your current partner was, say, a person with whom you had been carrying on a dishonest extra-marital affair for the entire time you'd been married to someone else?

What if you'd admitted to this affair on national television?

Surely then your public reputation is that of a known liar on matters of sexual probity?

In which case, it is not only NOT defamatory to suggest you're homosexual, for the reasons stated above; it's NOT defamatory to suggest you'd lie about it.

Claiming defamation in such a case would be like Mike Tyson claiming it was defamatory to suggest he was a violent man. Everyone KNOWS he is. He has no "reputation" for non-violence to protect.

If you've taken steps to make sure EVERYONE with any interest and quite a few without KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt that you lie in public about your sex life - how can it be defamatory to say you lie about your sex life???

Ok - let's put this scenario into the pandora's box - you're gay, you're happy with it, your friends are happy with it but you work for a old school egotistical bigot and realising this you've kept it quiet at work but are 'outed' to your boss by malicious design by someone knowing your career/future with that employer would be compromised...ok so you can sue the company for unfair/constructive dismissal but it still means starting at the bottom with another company.

Not sure that scenario quite works...

1. You're right, you could sue for constructive dismissal, and you'd win. Result - big pile of cash. Also your CV could state that clearly, so it wouldn't compromise your prospects elsewhere, and would damage the reputation of the company you'd left. Other companies in the same business would want you because you're clearly someone to be reckoned with, a self-starter who takes no s**t. Sounds like win-win to me.

2. You could also, possibly, sue the person who "outed" you. You'd probably win there, too. More cash.

3. You'd end up working for a company not run by an egotistical bigot.

Can't see the downside...

Depends on the type of person you are I suppose as to how it would effect you

Well, yeah, on how it would affect you /personally/. But it would make no difference to how it would affect you /legally/.

It's pretty obvious that I can't see how saying "he/she is gay" can be considered defamation in almost any case. It might be hurtful to have it come out before one is ready - but that's a rather different thing, isn't it?

Well that's it isn't it - you might not see the problem but other, less wise, more prejudiced folk might.

But the test of defamation is whether it lowers your standing with "right thinking people", not a minority of Nazis.

It's not defamatory to suggest someone is Jewish, is it? But SOME people would shun you if they thought you were. They, however, are not "right thinking people", and the law ignores them, and indeed punishes them if they act on their prejudices.

True enough in the dictionary definition of the term - but those bigots can really hurt, however few of them there may be left.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the amount of homophobia that still exists in the UK today. I heard a gay man talking about this on radio five yesterday - I think he was a regional broadcast journalist - and his view was that things hadn't got much better in recent years.

Why do people treat gays as if they have a disease??

i could remember my nephew coming to me a couple of years ago to say he was gay. i just told him i already knew from when he was a young age and it dont make any difference hes still my nephew no matter what.
I was please though as i was the first person he bought it out in the open with.

Mind ive not seen him since

I have to agree with the comment about not underestimating the current level of homophobia.

If you watch tv and other popular media, it looks like eveyone is very tolerant now and that being gay is cool. Try spending time in any conservative community, eg rural or small towns and its a different story (although there are always pockets of intelligence and tolerance there too)

Yes.

Do NOT underestimate the levels of prejudice that can still be found certainly all over of the UK, and undoubtedly everywhere else.

I have been out for a long time, my whole adult life. I am out in every area of my life. Verbal abuse from random people, mostly males aged 12-20ish I'd say. I don't care, because shouting 'lezzer' at me offends me as much as shouting 'woman' would. But many many people do care, and suffer violence, and homophobia at home, school, work. Lives can be and are made miserable.

Unfortunately, everyone thinks they qualify as a'right-minded' person. For many, homosexuality is anathema, for one reason or another. I don't think they're right, but they do.

I'm sure they would feel defamed by the 'accusation' of homosexuality.

What a gay day.

Fatty

Until very recently (in Britain at least) it was perfectly legal to dismiss someone from their job because of their sexuality. You would have had to go to the European court of human rights for compensation in such a case. So, not necessarily such a win win situation. (the relevant bill might not have gone through yet so it might still be legal. Huzzah.)

Also, someone scratched 'gay wankas' into the lift in the building where I work. That was some nine months ago. It's still there. I'm really feeling the love. And you know that if that had been racial graffiti they would have removed it the same day.

For those who care here's a list of some other notable queers, just to cheer you up after that depressing little rant. A1360153

You can still be 'accused' of being queer, but it depends largely on how you view sexuality and how the person accusing does. If you accept it as an insult then it becomes one, wheter it's true or not.

Fatty

I for one would be enraged if i had a high profile and someone shouted from a soap box that i was gay. I am not a bigot, but i believe the act to be immoral. if you keep to a traditional faith in todays world you have to stick to the philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin". While i try to hold no prejudice, that does not mean I want to be associated with something i consider wrong. Someone should have the right to fight the accusation, though in realistic terms it would do more harm to your reputation to fight the allegation that to deny it and move on. Within certain circles it would be the perfect form of character assassination.

'Jesus was gay'

Discuss.

That is utter rubbish, if you are trying to wind me up it won't work. I take it from your response you put no creadance in his teachings.
Your call, I leave you to meet you own judgement.