In a ruling that could have far-reaching consequences for online defamation law, the High Court recently delivered its judgment in Paisley v Linehan. The case, presided over by Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC, tackled key legal questions about defamatory statements, contextual interpretation and the responsibilities of online platform owners.
Paisley v Linehan [2025] EWHC 228 (KB)
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a series of publications on the defendant Graham Linehan’s Substack account, including an article and accompanying comments. The claimant, David Paisley, alleged that three specific comments (referred to as Publications 4(1), 4(2), and 4(3)) defamed him by suggesting he was a paedophile or engaged in activities that supported child molesters.
Paisley argued that these comments were statements of fact and were defamatory at common law. Linehan countered that the comments were either mere abuse, expressions of opinion, or mitigated by contextual elements.
Key legal issues
The judgment focused on three central questions:
- Meaning of the statements – Whether the comments conveyed a defamatory meaning.
- Statement of fact vs. opinion – Whether the allegations were presented as factual claims or as subjective expressions.
- Defamatory nature – Whether the statements harmed Paisley’s reputation in a manner recognised by law.
The Court’s Findings
Publication 4(1): The “Nonce” Comment
A comment posted by a user on Linehan’s Substack called Paisley a “nonce”. The Court found that:
- The word “nonce” is commonly understood to mean “paedophile”;
- The context of the article reinforced this meaning; and
- The comment was an expression of opinion, rather than an assertion of fact, but continued to have a defamatory meaning at common law.
Publication 4(2): The “Oh I See” Comment
Another user elaborated on the initial comment, suggesting that Paisley sought to “normalise adult male nudity in front of children”. The Court ruled:
- This statement implied that Paisley supported paedophilic behaviour;
- While initially reinforcing the defamatory impact of Publication 4(1), once the original comment was deleted, the meaning of Publication 4(2) changed slightly;
- It was deemed partly factual (regarding Paisley’s alleged views on nudity) and partly opinion (that such views justified calling him a paedophile).
Publication 4(3): The “Child-Molesters’ Strategy” Comment
A third comment claimed that child molesters were leveraging LGBT causes to push their agenda and that Paisley had “given the game away early”.
- The Court ruled this did not explicitly state that Paisley was a child-molester but alleged that he was knowingly assisting such individuals.
- This was classified as a statement of fact and had defamatory meaning.
Legal Precedents and Implications
Judge Eardley’s ruling provides significant insights into defamation law in the online sphere:
- Context matters: The meaning of defamatory statements must be assessed dynamically, considering the evolving discussion and additional posts.
- Online platform liability: Although Linehan did not personally post the defamatory comments, his role in moderating the discussion was considered in determining responsibility.
- The opinion vs. fact divide: The judgment reaffirms that calling someone a criminal without direct evidence is more likely to be an opinion than a statement of fact.
What this means for digital speech
This case is particularly relevant for content creators, online moderators, and social media users. It reinforces that while free speech is protected, falsely labelling someone as a criminal can have serious legal consequences. The ruling also suggests that platform owners must be cautious about defamatory comments made under their posts, as their responses (or lack thereof) may influence the /Court’s interpretation.
Final thoughts
Paisley v Linehan is a landmark decision in digital defamation law, setting precedents for future cases concerning online speech. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the balance between free expression and reputational harm remains a critical legal battleground. The case underscores the importance of responsible online discourse and the potential legal risks of unchecked allegations in public forums.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us