Treacle Toes
Time
Bullshit. Only lying, rentagob, shock-jocks need worry. What cost Hatie was her arrogance and belief that she is untouchable. She could have avoided this completely by simply correcting her mistake once she was asked.
Katie Hopkins
- Thread starter Buckaroo
- Start date
Bullshit. Only lying, rentagob, shock-jocks need worry. What cost Hatie was her arrogance and belief that she is untouchable. She could have avoided this completely by simply correcting her mistake once she was asked.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
I'd like to believe that was true, but could one still be liable even if one apologises for and deletes the offending tweet(s)?
Treacle Toes
Time
Depends whether the person you lie about/offend decides your apology isn't enough and takes you to court? No idea how the court would view this scenario though.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yes. Any risk that this ruling might "chill" speech on Twitter is far outweighed by the message it sends to thugs like Hopkins and those who would emulate her that you can't get away with that unpleasantness there any more.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
So yes then
You think that, or you think that what is being claimed in the article?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I think that and I think the article supports my view.
I think it would be very hard to show the damages necessary to prove libel if you had publicly apologised for a mistake and deleted the tweet the moment you were aware of the error. To be doubly sure of protecting yourself, it would probably be worth following up on any retweets or other repercussions by reiterating that you had made an error.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
When was twitter a 'free for all'?
Can you provide any evidence for either position? Because I think you are wrong, your premise is wrong and the article doesn't support it either.
Right now, you have literally just provided a link and run away.
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
That's slightly different then. Have apologies/retractions had legal impacts in the event of libel action taking place (rather than merely soothing the anger of the offended)?
Treacle Toes
Time
Well no, not really, given we don't know how a court would rule in that scenario.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Oh I think in its early days a lot more abuse was thrown around especially where prominent users were concerned, you only have to see people like Fry who regularly left because of what he considered to be abuse, and there are others in that situation today. Prominent women receiving rape threats, politicians finding they cannot debate things on twitter without receiving shed loads of direct insults.
The question remains if in future libel and or abuse will continue or decline. My bet is people will start to take it more seriously and it will have to decline.
You have your requirements back to front. The presumption is no libel, and you have to prove it exists. To prove it, you have to show material damage as a consequence of something incorrect being said about you. Such a task can made nothing but trickier if the period that an error was extant was short and mitigated by the actions of the propogator of the error.
You do know that libel and abuse are totally different things, don't you?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Your opinion is noted.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Probably that is why I listed them separately, so yes thanks, enough of your pointless pickiness.
But you aren't going to do anything at all to back up any of your claims? Not that it is now easier to prove libel on twitter, nor that the article backs up that claim?
Jesus, dude. This isn't pickiness, it's fundamental. Why are you talking about abuse when it's utterly irrelevant to your claim about libel?
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
There have been instances where libel actions have failed, or been dropped/left, as consequence of the damage-limiting effect of apology/retraction/deletion?
I suppose what I'm taking issue with is the idea that libel actions on twitter will only be brought against the nasty and hubristic; rather than by those with the means to pursue action - that it (apparently) becoming easier to prove libel on twitter is something we should have no concerns about
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
So twitter hasn't been a 'free for all' for a while then
Yes, of course. Tonnes of them! This very case is an example of a libel action that would have been dropped had an apology been issued.
If you want another, this is a famous example of dropping the case: Gaddafi's son settles for apology in libel case
Here's the court ruling on what happens if you refuse an apology: http://www.5rb.com/case/mawdsley-v-guardian-newspapers-ltd/
Quoting from that:
Owen Jones has just announced he is giving up posting on social media
says its because of the vile abuse from the Left AND Right abuse !
May put up events,rallys etc but no comments
I think personally this taking people to court will grow dangerous times people will have to be careful what they post
Question what if you have no money to pay out ha
says its because of the vile abuse from the Left AND Right abuse !
May put up events,rallys etc but no comments
I think personally this taking people to court will grow dangerous times people will have to be careful what they post
Question what if you have no money to pay out ha
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
If you post something on twitter
Trolls from left and right may slag yer
But please don't become bitter
Libel money will buy yer titfers
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
I don't.
I imagine he did say that and Hopkins said "no, we are going to take that sniveling little bitch to the cleaners"
Just said on the radio she is going to fight it , take it further
Mind it did come from a caller on a phone in LBC
This seems the way of it now brexit and Gina miller house of lords/commons etc , Trumps "plans" being over ruled etc
Any do twitter ? any good
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Just what could have gone through Hopkins' mind though? She knew that she had falsely accused the daughter of a Falklands veteran of being happy with the desecration of a war memorial. How could this ever have panned out any other way?
In all the legal cases I've been involved with, I've never had a lawyer claim more than an 80% chance of winning even when they have said it is open and shut. To refuse a £5k payment to charity (£2k of which can be reclaimed in tax!) in the face of a genuine libel case coming your way is just insanity.
Treacle Toes
Time
Eh?
