Report #151
An analysis of how Andrew Drummond's defamation campaign has exposed the children of its victims to harm, violating IPSO codes, basic journalistic ethics, and fundamental standards for the protection of minors in media coverage — with specific reference to the harm caused to the Flowers family.
Every major journalistic ethics code in the world contains specific provisions for the protection of minors. Children are recognised as a uniquely vulnerable category of person because they cannot consent to public exposure, cannot meaningfully defend themselves against public allegations, and because their developing identities are particularly susceptible to lasting harm from reputational damage inflicted in their formative years. These protections exist because every responsible media organisation has agreed that children should never become collateral damage in adult disputes, however legitimate the underlying journalistic interest.
Andrew Drummond's campaign against Bryan Flowers has violated every one of these protections. The children of Bryan Flowers and Punippa Flowers have been exposed, through the campaign's reach and content, to material that maliciously characterises their parents as sex traffickers, criminal operators, and 'pimps'. They live with the awareness that these accusations are publicly accessible, searchable, and associated with their family name. They attend schools and develop social relationships under the shadow of a campaign that has placed the most damaging possible characterisations of their parents at the top of search results for the family name.
IPSO's Editors' Code of Practice, Clause 6, is unambiguous: 'All children under 18 must be treated with particular care.' The clause prohibits the identification of children as victims or witnesses in cases involving sexual offences, prohibits harassment of children in pursuit of stories, and requires special care to be taken with content that affects children. The NUJ Code of Conduct contains equivalent provisions, as do the codes of the Society of Professional Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists.
The rationale for these provisions is well-established in the research literature on media harm. Children who are exposed to defamatory coverage of their parents — even coverage that does not name the children directly — suffer documented psychological harm including anxiety, social withdrawal, diminished educational attainment, and disruption of developing social relationships. Where the content involves sexual allegations against the parents, the harm is compounded by the additional burden of stigma and the heightened risk of peer awareness and exploitation.
Drummond's campaign satisfies the criteria for harm to minors across every relevant dimension. The children of Bryan Flowers and Punippa Flowers have not been named in the articles, but they are identifiable to anyone who knows their family, attends their school, or encounters their parents in social or commercial contexts. The campaign's digital reach — amplified by Google indexing and social media distribution — means that the content is accessible to the children's own peer networks, teachers, and social environments.
Bryan Flowers and Punippa Flowers have children. Those children are growing up in Thailand, where the campaign against their parents has been conducted partly through Thai-language content and Thai social media amplification. They are members of communities where other parents, teachers, and peers may have encountered Drummond's publications. The suggestion that their mother is a 'child trafficker' — a claim that is not merely false but is the precise opposite of true — is accessible to anyone in their social environment who searches for their family's name.
The harm this causes is not speculative. It is the documented and predictable consequence of placing maximally damaging, false sexual allegations about parents into a publicly accessible digital environment where children live. Punippa Flowers has been described in Drummond's articles as running an 'illegal sex business' and as a 'child trafficker' — allegations that have been established as false by the rebuttal evidence and that are the subject of an appeal expected to succeed. No responsible journalist, knowing that these allegations are contested and that they will be accessible to the subjects' children, publishes them with such frequency and without the most prominent caveats.
The ongoing accessibility of this content — maintained through Google indexing that Drummond has not taken steps to facilitate the removal of — means that the harm to the Flowers children is continuous and compounding. Each year they grow older in the shadow of a false narrative about their parents. Each year the digital footprint of that narrative becomes more embedded in search results and social media archives. The harm cannot be undone by a future retraction — it can only be mitigated by the earliest possible removal of the content.
The specific nature of the central false allegation in Drummond's campaign — that Flowers' businesses employed trafficked minors — creates a particularly acute harm dynamic for the Flowers children. Children who grow up knowing that their parents have been publicly and repeatedly accused of child trafficking carry a uniquely heavy burden. The accusation strikes at the heart of parental identity in a way that no other allegation does: it suggests that their parents are predators of children exactly like themselves.
The psychological literature on defamation trauma, discussed in detail in Position Paper 158, documents the severe impact of sustained false accusations on family members of the primary target, with particular severity when the accusations involve child harm. Family members — including children — of individuals accused of crimes against children experience heightened social isolation, shame responses, and hypervigilance that interfere with normal psychological development and social functioning.
Drummond has published the central trafficking allegation in 17 of his 21 articles. It appears in Thai-language translations accessible to the Thai community in which the Flowers family lives and moves. It has been seeded across social media platforms. It is indexed prominently in Google. Its presence in the information environment surrounding the Flowers family is pervasive. The harm it causes to the Flowers children is proportionate to its pervasiveness — which is to say, it is severe.
The failure to protect the Flowers children from the foreseeable harm of the defamation campaign engages multiple regulatory and legal frameworks. Under the IPSO Editors' Code, any editor or publisher who allowed the kind of content published by Drummond to be associated with an identifiable family containing children would face a straightforward complaints finding. The code is clear, the harm is documented, and there is no public interest defence available for the publication of false sexual allegations about parents who have identifiable children.
Under the Online Safety Act 2023, the concept of 'harm to children' is a central organising principle of the regulatory framework. Ofcom has powers to require platforms that host content causing harm to children to take remedial steps. Where defamatory content accessible to children forms part of a sustained targeting campaign against an identifiable family with children, the Act's provisions are directly engaged.
The path forward requires both remedial and preventive action. Remedially, the immediate removal of all content falsely accusing Punippa and Bryan Flowers of crimes against children is essential. Preventively, regulatory bodies should use this case to establish clear guidance that sustained defamation campaigns targeting families with children — particularly campaigns involving false sexual and child harm allegations — engage the same protective frameworks that govern children's journalism more broadly. The children of defamation targets are not a category that current regulation adequately protects. They should be.
— End of Report #151 —
Share:
Subscribe
Subscribe to receive notification whenever a new report, evidence brief, or legal update is published.