After accusing an adult industry media magnate of being a ‘rapist’ on Twitter, a gay porn star is being sued for £60,000 in libel damages.
Mickey Taylor, whose true name is Marcus Stones, has been sued by industry leader Dominic Ford, whose real name is Jack Aaronson, after he accused Aaronson of ‘raping models’ in a series of tweets in June 2020.
‘Using your status as a figurehead in the industry to extort models & bully them into sex is UNACCEPTABLE!’ read one of the tweets.
Mr. Aaronson, an American businessman, has denied any misconduct and has accused Mr. Stones of creating ‘toxic’ and ‘deliberately false charges to destroy him’ on Twitter and in a YouTube video interview.
He’s asking for an injunction to prevent any additional allegations, as well as damages of up to £60,000.
Mr. Stones, who lives in Manchester, agreed that the tweets accused Mr. Aaronson of being a rapist, but he told a judge in London’s High Court that he stands by his online posts, saying he felt compelled to speak up because allegations of sex worker abuse are frequently ‘laughed off’ when reported to authorities.
He assured Mr. Justice Johnson that he will use the words “truth” and “public interest” in court to defend his tweets.
Mr. Aaronson previously worked in the pornographic industry before creating the website Just For Fans in 2018, which connects porn performers with fans directly. As a result of the film’s success, he was nominated for an XBiz award.
Mr. Stones made comments on a Twitter account with 17,000 followers and in a video on a YouTube channel with 192,000 subscribers, prompting the businessman to file a libel suit in April of last year.
Mr. Stones had stated that the testimonies of alleged victims’should be heard,’ that the people he spoke to were not ‘the only victims,’ and that he ‘won’t back down,’ according to the barrister.
Mr. Stones, of Belle Vue, Manchester, agreed during a pre-trial hearing that the tweets accusing Mr. Aaronson of being a rapist had been taken down and the account deactivated.
‘From the facts provided to me from outside sources, it is within my judgment that these people were sexually assaulted,’ he told the judge, Mr. Justice Johnson.
‘We have to speak up for ourselves and make our voices known openly in the sex worker sector.’
‘When sex workers report assaults to the police, they are sometimes laughed at since we can’t be sexually assaulted because we work in the sex industry.’
‘Isn’t this a case of public concern? We have to look out for each other in public.’
‘You agree that you wrote the tweets,’ the judge said. They mean, according to the claimant, that he is a rapist. You concur with the claimant’s interpretation. The meanings of the tweets are undeniable.
‘In reality, there is only one defense: truth – that the meaning of the claimant’s tweets that he is a rapist is correct.’
‘If you’re claiming someone,’ says the narrator.
Mr Aaronson’s lawyer, Gervase De Wilde, writes in court filings that the allegations in the tweets and video are “toxic and highly reputationally harmful.”
One tweet’meant and would be taken to mean that the claimant had misused his position in the adult entertainment industry in order to rape models,’ according to Mr. De Wilde, while another’meant and would be understood to suggest that the claimant was a serial rapist.’
‘The defendant has publicly confessed on his Twitter account that he is unable to substantiate the charges in the tweets, but has resisted reasonable demands to withdraw and apologize for them,’ he said.
‘The claimant has experienced extremely significant upset, humiliation, hurt, and suffering as a result of the defendant’s publishing of the tweets and YouTube video.’
‘In response to correspondence from the claimant’s lawyers and in light of the claimant’s threatened legal action, (the defendant) issued more tweets…in which he maintained his refusal to apologize and stated that he would not back down.’
Mr. De Wilde told the judge that Mr. Aaronson “wants vindication in regard to the false allegations of rape,” and that “all of the remedies sought are aimed at restoring his good character.”
‘After the parties had a falling out over access to a website, the defendant made purposeful false claims to hurt him,’ he added.
‘In his defense, the defendant claims that he is relaying a victim’s narrative and that his articles are his personal viewpoint.’ However, the underlying allegation is a reality, not a remark.
‘The defamatory connotation appears to be that the claimant is a rapist.’
‘The public interest defense would only work if the defendant could establish that he took efforts consistent with responsible journalism, such as approaching the claimant and giving him the opportunity to present his side of the story in the interest of balance.’
The demand for damages specified in the claim form is now restricted to £60,000.
The case will be heard in court again at a later date.