Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-08-25 19:58:50 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

The court refused Mr Fox's appeal that the original judge was wrong in declining to define the meaning of “racist”; ruling the decision entirely legitimate. NO definition of "racist" was given by either judge. Mr Fox's claims here are therefore innacurate. Para 42 & 56 👇🏻 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/1000

Written by 5761D7487DCEAF09FEF4C573967C7CBF759467FC0E979299E35C23C5F1D28C84
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1695163848443953293
• noteId - 1695163848443953293
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - 5761D7487DCEAF09FEF4C573967C7CBF759467FC0E979299E35C23C5F1D28C84 Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1692993530748
• tweetId - 1695007005537112446
• classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 1
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 0
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
• trustworthySources - 1
• summary
• The court refused Mr Fox's appeal that the original judge was wrong in declining to define the meaning of “racist”; ruling the decision entirely legitimate. NO definition of "racist" was given by either judge. Mr Fox's claims here are therefore innacurate. Para 42 & 56 👇🏻 https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2023/1000