Swan v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Meet the glamorous American cult leader nicknamed the Gucci Guru who claims she's part alien and destined for world domination as followers flock to her Costa Rican jungle hideout

ByDAILYMAIL.COM REPORTER

PUBLISHED: 02:44, 11 March 2018 | UPDATED: 09:21, 11 March 2018

She believes she's an alien destined for world domination, says she can enter people's brain stems, and claims Hitler was the greatest contributor to world peace.

She has called death 'delicious', seemingly endorsed suicide, but also believes she has the power to help people 'stay physically alive'.

She is Teal Swan, better known as the Gucci Guru, and she has become what some call the leader of a terrifying posh cult detailed in a newMediumarticle.

You will never find Swan in robes, she prefers tight skirts. And the self-appointed leader is unabashed about her preference for expensive jewels and luxurious hotels.

'I knew that I wanted to be famous and be on people's television screens and be on stage,' she once said.

'At a cellular level, I knew that I was destined to be a performer.'

'Before I even came down, there was an entire panel of Arcturian beings - sixth dimensional beings - who even chose the way I would look in this life.'

It may sound silly to some, but Swan has successfully spread her message far and wide.

She has 434,000 subscribers on YouTube, 53 million total views on her videos, 162,000 Facebook likes, and 60,000 followers on Instagram.

And that's not including the people who come from all over the world to attend Swan's workshops and seminars at her center in Atenas, Costa Rica.

It is there Swan was able to convince one follower he had been 'brutally sodomized' by a gray alien, and told another that her cat was a 'holographic soul projection from the planet Sirius' who was trying to warn them about their blood sugar.

What is Swan's endgame? She wants to build a company that will become one of the wealthiest 'in the world', an 'unstoppable monolith' that will buy countries and 'build new societies'.

Swan sees herself as a revolutionary, going so far as to compare herself to Martin Luther King Jr, Jesus Christ, and Gandhi.

'What's happening with them is what's happening with me,' she said. 'If I stand up on stage and someone puts a bullet through my head, I have more attention.'

Swan believes she is part human, part extra-terrestrial, as well as 'nonphysical', and claims to have the power to force herself into people's brain stems.

'I activate the part of their brain which is in charge of breathing (and other autonomic functions like the heartbeat)', she said in one video.

'This allows them a channel back into their body'.

Swan also claims she can 'hear thought forms', as well as a person's 'bones, organs, nerves, veins', and professes to 'see the future' through 'prophetic visions and dreams'.

'How do I have all this information? It's because I'm extra sensory,' she has said. 'I'm not limited to this dimension or time-space reality.'

'I did not come to earth with a specific message. I came here as a course turner. I am the game changer.'

Swan sees her followers as soldiers that she has trained for her 'collective awakening' or - as she once phrased it - 'members of my army'.

But there appears to be a dangerous underside to Swan's following, which promotes itself via emblazoned booty shorts and matching tattoos.

Swan has been recorded making a number of racist comments, such as when she recalled seeing a group of African American women who she claimed 'were actually feeling so hopeless that they were wanting rape'.

'A really beautiful woman down in Africa may come up to the US and be considered pretty ugly,' she said in another instance.

During one interview Swan even claimed that Hitler had done more for peace than anyone else in the world.

'If you are on the highest vibrational level looking at this planet, the person who added to peace more than anyone else on this planet is Hitler,' she said.

'No one was thinking about world peace until he came along.'

Swan has also made a number of concerning remarks about death and suicide, made all the more worrisome after two of her own followers killed themselves.

'People who commit suicide - what you'll see is that they've fulfilled their purpose because they are understanding - you know, the higher self,' she once said.

'Their source stream is understanding the concept of love. But they only unite with that love they have created when they commit suicide.'

Swan, who once claimed she was sewed [sic] into a corpse for 12 hours while being abused in a cult as a child, has also said death is 'delicious'.

'When you die, it's like lining up with the best food you've ever eaten, and the lover who you've always wanted,' she said in one video.

Swan has also told her followers that 'we shouldn't just assume that living is always right' and that 'death is not wrong'.

'Death feels wonderful no matter who you are,' she added.

One friend called Swan the 'most unstable person' they had ever met, adding that she was 'pathologically manipulative'.

'She makes you believe that she sees the truth,' another friend said. 'The truth is, she likes the control and the power over other people.'

The latter is something Swan herself has admitted.

'I am a master at mental chess,' she once said. 'I play mind games with people.'

She is Teal Swan, better known as the Gucci Guru, and she has become what some call the leader of a new - and terrifying - posh cult

Swan has spread her message far and wide. She has 434,000 subscribers on YouTube, 53 million total views on her videos, and 60,000 followers on Instagram

That's because Swan is as forthright in her thirst for fame as she is with the belief that she was anointed in this life by 'sixth dimensional beings'.

You will never find Swan in robes, she prefers tight skirts. And the self-appointed leader is unabashed about her preference for expensive jewels and luxurious hotels

Swan is as forthright in her thirst for fame as she is with the belief that she was anointed in this life by 'sixth dimensional beings'

Swan sees herself as a revolutionary, going so far as to compare herself to Martin Luther King Jr, Christ, and Gandhi

People who come from all over the world to attend Swan's workshops and seminars at her center in Atenas, Costa Rica

Swan claims she can 'hear thought forms' and professes to 'see the future' through 'prophetic visions and dreams'

Swan has called her followers a soldier that she has trained for her 'collective awakening' or - as she once phrased it - 'members of my army'. They even get a tattoo to match her own

Swan has made a number of concerning remarks about death and suicide, made all the more worrisome after two of her own followers killed themselves The issues

the natural and ordinary meaning borne by [the Article];

whether the Article contained a statement of opinion or fact.

The claimant’s case Meaning

The Article contains a large number of false statements which are grossly defamatory of the Claimant. In its publication context, the Article bore and was understood to bear the following natural and ordinary meanings false and defamatory of the Claimant:

The Claimant endorses suicide and has a particular obsession with death and suicide as part of her worldview and teachings

There are reasonable grounds to conclude that the Claimant's endorsement of suicide in her teachings has caused or inspired two people to kill themselves;

The Claimant is a racist and/or has a track record for making a number of statements that were overtly prejudiced against a racial group on the grounds of that group's racial characteristics;

The Claimant has made dangerously irresponsible, repugnant and ahistorical claims that Adolf Hitler promoted peace;

The Claimant's modern spiritualist teachings have included a conviction that she was brutally sodomized by a grey-coloured alien and that her cat is a holographic soul projection from the planet Sirius warning about blood sugar levels;

And, in these circumstances, the Claimant is to be regarded as a dangerous, terrifying and deluded megalomaniac cult leader who peddles messages of the most irresponsible and harmful kind to her followers.

The Claimant is a cult leader who has sought to cultivatedevotion, power, and fame but whose teachings have adisturbing underside which has involved the Claimantpropagating some terrifying, dangerous, and irresponsibletheories, therapies and beliefs amongst her followers, including:

Making a number of racist comments

Making a claim that Hitler had done more for peace than anyone else in the world

Making a number of concerning remarks celebrating death and endorsing suicide which, there are grounds to suspect, caused two of the Claimant's followers to kill themselves.

(My emphasis: see [16] below).

The Claimant is a cult leaderwho has sought to cultivatedevotion, power, fame and wealth by propagating someoutlandish, dangerous and irresponsible theories, therapies andteachings amongst her followers, including for example:

Making racist comments;

Seeking to manipulate and indoctrinate her followers, including by styling herself as part-alien with extra-sensory powers and playing mind games with them in order to convincethem to accept bizarre and disturbing ideas about themselves,their experiences and their health;

Making concerning remarks about death and suicide whichare all the more worrisome after two of her followers killed themselves;

Making a claim that Hitler had done more for peace than anyone else in the world on the footing that until he came along, no-one was thinking about world peace.

Paragraph (d) has been added since last October.

The Court should identify the single, natural and ordinary meaning which the published statement would convey to an ordinary reasonable reader, reading the whole of the statement. The principles are more elaborately summarised by Nicklin J in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB) [2020] 4 WLR 25 [11-15], to which I have been referred at this trial, as is usual.

A comment is something in the nature of a deduction, inference, conclusion, criticism, remark, observation, etc.; it must be recognisable as such; and again, the key question is how the words would strike the ordinary reasonable reader: see also Koutsogiannis at [16-17].

The common law has a threshold of seriousness, by which a meaning or imputation, whether it be one of fact or opinion, is defamatory only if it would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way that right-thinking members of society generally would treat the claimant: see Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) [2011] 1 WLR 1985 [96] (Tugendhat J) and my decision in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2015] EWHC 2242 (QB) [2016] QB 402 (affirmed, [2019] UKSC 27), at [15(5)].

Meaning

The ordinary reasonable reader can read between the lines and indulges in a certain amount of loose thinking, but is neither avid for scandal or unduly naïve; this hypothetical reader does not seize on the worst possible meaning of the statement nor on the least damaging, but takes a middle course: Koutsogiannis [12(iii)].

Both literalism and over-elaborate analysis should be avoided, both by the parties and by the Court: ibid. [12(iv), (v)].

The Court should have regard to the impression the article has made upon it: ibid [12(xii)].

The Court is not bound by the meanings advanced by the parties: ibid [12(xiii)].

Where a single publication contains a number of separate and distinct defamatory imputations, a claimant is entitled to limit his claim to one or more of those imputations, and it is not open to a defendant to expand the parameters of the claim by advancing a defence to other potentially actionable imputations of which no complaint was made.

But a claimant cannot seek artificially to narrow or to circumscribe the claim by selective complaint of words or passages taken out of context; and conversely a defendant is entitled to point to other passages in an article in order to aver that the words in their context bear a different and/or wider meaning from that alleged.

Whether different defamatory statements in a publication are truly separate and distinct (and therefore severable or excisable) will be a question of fact and degree in each case.

See Polly Peck (Holdings) plc v Trelford [1986] QB 1000, S&K Holdings Ltd v Throgmorton Publications Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 1036, 1039, Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65, Cruise v Express Newspapers Plc [1999] QB 93.

[2001] EWCA Civ 1644 [2002] EMLR 16 [46] (Simon Brown LJ), Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 197 [2013] EMLR 18 [22-23] (Laws LJ).

Fact or comment

The enquiry is one that looks only at the words complained of and the immediate context: Telnikokoff v Matusevitch [1992] 2 AC 343, 352.

The Court should be alive to the danger that a process which seeks to identify comment which is implicit in the words used may stray into one which adds to the natural and ordinary meaning a moral judgment that is not part of the published statement, because it is, in reality, supplied by the reader; but the possibility that a statement may imply a comment, rather than spelling it out, cannot be ruled out: see my analysis in Lord Mohamed Sheikh v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 2947 (QB) [22], citing Tinkler v Ferguson [2018] EWHC 3563 (QB) [37] and Koutsogiannis [17]. This is a risk in relation to factual imputations also: see the discussion in Allen v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 1235 (QB) [28], where

“Not every statement that ‘is or can be inferred to be … [an] inference’ is necessarily to be treated as an expression of opinion”: see Sheikh v Associated [23], where I continued:

A statement which appears to be one of opinion, but contains no indication of or reference to any supporting facts, may be treated as a statement of fact: Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53[2011] 1 AC 852 [88–89] (Lord Phillips).

When considering whether a statement is one of fact or opinion it is relevant to consider whether it asserts something verifiable (Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] EWHC 281 (QB) [19]) but this is not conclusive, and there is no fixed rule about this (Zarb-Cousin v Association of British Bookmakers [2018] EWHC 2240 (QB) [26] (Nicklin J)).

The subject-matter and context will often be important indicators of whether a statement is, to the ordinary reader, an expression of opinion or a statement of fact:

Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 did not affect the common law rules about how to identify statements of fact and opinion: Barron v Collins [2015] EWHC 1125 (QB), [13]-[15].

Gravity

197 [17], the language

Neither the parties nor the court are forced to select one of the three levels. Nor is the court bound by the meanings contended for by the parties. It can, indeed must, recognise and give effect to the almost infinite capacity of words to convey subtle shades of meaning, which may fall between the Chase levels. Thus, nobody suggests that Gray J was wrong, when in Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd he found a meaning of “cogent grounds to suspect”: [2005] EWHC 2187 (QB) [58]. In Feyziyev v The Journalism Development Network Association, I found that one of the two articles complained of bore a Chase Level

Two meaning, but the second bore a meaning of “strong grounds to suspect”: [2019] EWHC 957 (QB) [25], [36].

The meaning I found in Sheikh at [37] included the imputation that the claimant’s conduct “provides strong grounds for suspecting” that he was secretly an anti-Semite. The extent and location of the publication complained of

of this court. That made me wonder if this might have implications for the determination of meaning.

The Particulars of Claim give further information about the claimant:

The Particulars of Claim also give circulation figures for the Daily Mail. More importantly, it would seem, they give figures for MailOnline, and the two Facebook pages relied on:

These appear to be global figures, and on a superficial reading it might appear that the claim relates to publication worldwide. That impression is bolstered by other passages in the Particulars of Claim. Paragraph 8 asserts that “The Article was published online to a large, but presently unquantifiable number of readers within the jurisdiction and beyond” (my emphasis). In support of the claimant’s case on serious harm, paragraphs 10.3 and 10.4 rely on “a hostile television report on Costa

The Particulars of Claim as a whole suggest, however, that the claim is limited to publication in this jurisdiction. Paragraphs 2 and 8 invite inferences that

I am therefore concerned at this trial with the reaction of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader in England and Wales. I can safely ignore whether any special considerations might have arisen in deciding meaning, if the claim was one that embraced publication abroad. I do not have to deal, either, with any other issues that may in fact arise from reliance on things that happened abroad, such the causation of any reputational or business harm flowing from events in Costa Rica or other foreign jurisdictions and/or the recoverability of damages for any such harm.

For the claimant

The assertion that the claimant has made racist comments is, in context, a factual matter, presented as the first plank of the factual case as to why she has a “dangerous underside”. The Court will be well placed at a trial to determine as a matter of fact whether she did make racist comments, by applying (for example) the law contained in Part III of the Public Order Act 1986.

A statement that someone claimed that Hitler did more for peace than anyone else is “obviously defamatory”. Such a person would be regarded with distaste and revulsion by the ordinary reader, who would consider it to be a terrifying and irresponsible view. Paragraph [25-26], read in context, and having regard to paragraphs [1-3], suggest to the reader that the claimant’s statements about Hitler are a matter of greater importance than other statements, which are not repeated in the Article.

The words of paragraph [28] contain verifiable allegations of fact, giving rise to the following question for trial: “did the statements made by Ms Swan about death and suicide, in their proper context, amount to an endorsement of suicide as the Article asserts?”.

The statement that the claimant’s remarks about death and suicide are “all the more worrisome after two of her own followers killed themselves” conveys the additional factual imputation that there are grounds to suspect that the claimant’s conduct in making those remarks caused two of her followers to kill themselves. She is presented as an influential person, with a significant following. Bearing in mind the attributed comments about death being “delicious”, the reader can “read between the lines” that the claimant’s theories have caused two people to commit suicide.

That it erroneously enlarges the general charge by adding in imputations that are not to be found in the Article. There is no suggestion that the claimant is seeking personal gain, on the contrary: [12-13] quotes comparisons with noted ascetics; and the word “outlandish” is an illegitimate intrusion, contrary to the Tinkler principle.

That it includes terms that are components of the Article, but which are not defamatory, or not defamatory in this context. Mr Hirst points in particular to the word “manipulative”, submitting that this is a low-level imputation that falls short of the common law threshold of seriousness. He invites comparison with the imputations of being “disrespectful and dismissive of the McCartneys and Annie Lennox” that were held to fall short of that standard in Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 2779 (QB) (Sharp J, DBE).

That the defendant has downplayed some key aspects of the Article: “the notable and memorable allegation” that the claimant has advanced “disturbing statements that Hitler was a force for world peace”, and the implied attribution of responsibility for suicide. The Hitler aspect of the Article was originally ignored altogether by the defendant, he submits. The defendant’s new paragraph (d) reflects it only in a watered-down way.

For the defendant

First, there is a criticism that I would label “impermissible selectivity”. Mr Glen submits that, when it comes to the “sub-imputations”, the claimant’s meaning notably fails to take any account of a prominent feature of the Article, namely “the charge that she seeks to manipulate and indoctrinate her followers”. Counsel points to paragraphs [11] (“able to convince”), [15] (“claims to have power to force herself into people’s brain stems”), [21] (“sees her followers as soldiers that she has trained …. ‘members of my army’”), [35] (“pathologically manipulative”), [36] (“likes the control and the power over other people”) and the reference to mind-games in paragraph [38].

Secondly, it is submitted that the claimant continues to misconstrue what the Article said about the claimant’s comments about Hitler and world peace. The Particulars of Claim allege that the relevant passage ([25-27]) accused the claimant of having said that “Hitler promoted peace”. Mr Glen argues that was clearly wrong, and has rightly been abandoned, but the claimant persists with a meaning that ignores the claimant’s own explanation, as quoted in the Article. If that context is properly taken into account, the suggestion in the Article is “that Hitler acted as a catalyst for people to think about world peace for the first time”. The Court should reject any meaning that insinuates that the claimant was arguing that Hitler was himself an advocate for world peace.

Thirdly, Mr Glen submits that the claimant’s meaning (4) distorts what is said in the Article about the claimant’s teachings on death and suicide. In his submission, the claimant’s approach involves an unreasonably strained interpretation of what the Article says. It mistakenly “seeks to transform a clear expression of opinion about the ‘concerning’ nature of … [those] teachings … into a narrowly directed statement of fact about the cause of two individual deaths”. It is wrong to try to “reinterpret this section of the Article through the prism of Chase levels”, as the Article makes no attempt to analyse or report on the circumstances of the two suicides, or to “construct a case of suspicion” in respect of them.

The claimant is theleader of a cultwith huge ambitions, who has sought to cultivate devotion, power, and fameamong her many followers.

Her beliefs, claims and teachings include a number which may be regarded as silly, but shehas a dangerous underside.

She is a pathologically manipulative person with a highlyunstable personality, who has propagated outlandish theories, and demonstrated an ability to persuade others of ideas about themselves that are bizarre and disturbing;

and she has:-

so, there is a real possibility that her teachings may have caused or contributed to two of her followers killing themselves; and

she is to be regarded as terrifying.

The term “racist” is capable of a range of meanings. It does not have any defined meaning as a matter of law. Some forms of speech and behaviour are criminal because of their tendency to stir up racial hatred, or they are criminal – or more gravely criminal – because of racial motivation; but Mr Hirst has not identified any criminal offence that is cast in terms of “making racist comments”. In any event, the “charge” in the Article is not that the claimant has committed a public order offence, or any racially aggravated offence. In its context, it represents an evaluation in everyday language of the statements quoted in the Article and others, alluded to but not identified. In ordinary language the term “racist” may refer to speech or conduct that is motivated by racial prejudice, or to statements or behaviour that are objectively discriminatory, whatever their motivation. Discrimination may be direct or indirect. There is a range of views about the proper application of the term. Some, for instance, deplore the use of stereotypes about nationalities, or “cultural appropriation” as racist. Others would regard that as a misapplication of the word.

The “Hitler” meaning that I have arrived at is the one I first thought of, when reading the Article unaffected by the parties’ submissions. In my judgment, it reflects the reaction that the hypothetical reasonable reader would have. It is very close to the literal wording of paragraph [2], where the allegation is presented prominently by the defendant. This would strike the reader forcefully. As everyone knows, loose talk about Hitler is apt to arouse strong feelings. I do not accept Mr Glen’s submission that it would have been clear to the reader that all the claimant was saying was that Hitler had, inadvertently, benefited the world by bringing to light the advantages of world peace. As Mr Glen conceded in the course of argument, the defendant’s argument comes down to this: the contents of paragraph [27] would have drawn any sting contained in paragraphs [2] and [25-26]. It is a little unreal to attribute that level of analytical sophistication to someone (anyone) reading this article, which embeds in the reader’s mind at an early stage the clear message that the claimant “claims Hitler was the greatest contributor to world peace”. This, in my assessment, is a defamatory factual meaning, essentially for the reasons advanced by Mr Hirst. (3)The reader is told early on that the claimant has “seemingly endorsed suicide”: [2]. Reference is then made to “concerning remarks” about death ([28]) followed immediately by reference to the suicide of two followers. Those deaths are introduced as a fact which makes the claimant’s statements “all the more worrisome”. The claimant’s alleged statements about death and suicide are then set out extensively at [28-34]. The Article links statements by the claimant and the suicide of two followers. Mr Glen’s ambitious submission, that the deaths would be regarded by the ordinary reader as nothing more than bare facts, supporting the observation that the claimant’s teachings are “worrisome”, cannot be accepted. It begs the question of why the deaths should be regarded as relevant, if there could not be any causal link between them and the claimant’s teachings. More prosaically: why are the deaths mentioned at all, if there is no suggestion that they might be causally related?