Libel Gone mad

[Jon MW]

Not really an issue of law as such, more an issue of what is reasonable to infer. It's actually a pretty good judgement, even though I disagree with the conclusion drawn in that section. Very fine line between what is stupid and what is libellous.

It's pretty much like the original TwitterJokeTrial, but in reverse - in that one the authorities initially took the chap's tweet at face value even though it was clearly a joke (albeit an unfunny one), whereas here the tweet has no harm at face value, but when you look at the hidden inferences it can cause harm.

this is an interesting postiion -- except it assumes that those inferences are reasonable, which I don't ever think they can be. I find the 'conviction by jigsaw completion' line of argument to be particularly troubling.

Yup. I agree. It is troubling, but it is a plausible line to take. All a matter of interpretation.

One of my finest moments as a lawyer was winning a defamation case whilst representing breeders of bedlington terriers who had been accused of defaming breeders of cocker spaniels. Was tremendous fun and the highlight of my brief career.

I wasn't particularly following the news coverage at the time because I didn't think it was particularly interesting.

But I noticed enough to know that the Newsnight reference was about "a senior Conservative"

and I noticed the reporting of Sally Bercow tweeting about Lord McAlpine

So I absolutely put together the libellous assertion through inference rather than any foreknowledge before her tweet.

Her intention was pretty clearly to help spread that knowledge about Lord McAlpine - that knowledge was defamatory; so how can it be anything other than libellous?

[outragous76]

Not really an issue of law as such, more an issue of what is reasonable to infer. It's actually a pretty good judgement, even though I disagree with the conclusion drawn in that section. Very fine line between what is stupid and what is libellous.

It's pretty much like the original TwitterJokeTrial, but in reverse - in that one the authorities initially took the chap's tweet at face value even though it was clearly a joke (albeit an unfunny one), whereas here the tweet has no harm at face value, but when you look at the hidden inferences it can cause harm.

this is an interesting postiion -- except it assumes that those inferences are reasonable, which I don't ever think they can be. I find the 'conviction by jigsaw completion' line of argument to be particularly troubling.

Yup. I agree. It is troubling, but it is a plausible line to take. All a matter of interpretation.

One of my finest moments as a lawyer was winning a defamation case whilst representing breeders of bedlington terriers who had been accused of defaming breeders of cocker spaniels. Was tremendous fun and the highlight of my brief career.

I wasn't particularly following the news coverage at the time because I didn't think it was particularly interesting.

But I noticed enough to know that the Newsnight reference was about "a senior Conservative"

and I noticed the reporting of Sally Bercow tweeting about Lord McAlpine

So I absolutely put together the libellous assertion through inference rather than any foreknowledge before her tweet.

Her intention was pretty clearly to help spread that knowledge about Lord McAlpine - that knowledge was defamatory; so how can it be anything other than libellous?

Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.

What are you infererring from *innocent face*? her face, his face? is smiley face different? What about if it was proceeded by a hashtag and not **?

If she had 1 follower who lived in deepest darkest peru and check his account fornightly (or maybe he is a moron, or just busy), is it still libellous?

[Jon MW]

...
Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.
...

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

[outragous76]

...
Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.
...

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

so its newsnight that have libelled him, not her.

[Somerled]

Not really an issue of law as such, more an issue of what is reasonable to infer. It's actually a pretty good judgement, even though I disagree with the conclusion drawn in that section. Very fine line between what is stupid and what is libellous.

It's pretty much like the original TwitterJokeTrial, but in reverse - in that one the authorities initially took the chap's tweet at face value even though it was clearly a joke (albeit an unfunny one), whereas here the tweet has no harm at face value, but when you look at the hidden inferences it can cause harm.

this is an interesting postiion -- except it assumes that those inferences are reasonable, which I don't ever think they can be. I find the 'conviction by jigsaw completion' line of argument to be particularly troubling.

Yup. I agree. It is troubling, but it is a plausible line to take. All a matter of interpretation.

One of my finest moments as a lawyer was winning a defamation case whilst representing breeders of bedlington terriers who had been accused of defaming breeders of cocker spaniels. Was tremendous fun and the highlight of my brief career.

I wasn't particularly following the news coverage at the time because I didn't think it was particularly interesting.

But I noticed enough to know that the Newsnight reference was about "a senior Conservative"

and I noticed the reporting of Sally Bercow tweeting about Lord McAlpine

So I absolutely put together the libellous assertion through inference rather than any foreknowledge before her tweet.

Her intention was pretty clearly to help spread that knowledge about Lord McAlpine - that knowledge was defamatory; so how can it be anything other than libellous?

I'm certainly not sure that her intention was clear one way or the other - I just think she was being stupid and mischievous (which indeed can be defamatory) but I still reckon very few, if any, people who read the tweet made the jigsaw puzzle link, you only did due to the way the news reported the tweet, not from the tweet itself.

As I recall at the time, the reason folk were (stupidly) adding 2 and 2 to make 5 is the fact that Macalpine paid a lawyer to watch the inquiry into child abuse at the Children's home in Wales, and the police investigation had been shambolic at best. The fact that the original abuse allegations still haven't been properly dealt with is a far bigger scandal than a stupid tweet from a foolish woman.

[Jon MW]

...
Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.
...

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

so its newsnight that have libelled him, not her.

Just because you're not the original source of defamatory information - doesn't stop it being defamatory when you repeat it or refer to it.

Every tweeter who repeated it was guilty of libel - that's why he got so many of them to reach settlements with him.

[outragous76]

...
Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.
...

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

so its newsnight that have libelled him, not her.

Just because you're not the original source of defamatory information - doesn't stop it being defamatory when you repeat it or refer to it.

Every tweeter who repeated it was guilty of libel - that's why he got so many of them to reach settlements with him.

so If i buy a copy of teh Sun who libel someone, and sell it to my friend, I am guilty too?

[outragous76]

I also notice you ignored my followers point

[Jon MW]

...
Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.
...

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

so its newsnight that have libelled him, not her.

Just because you're not the original source of defamatory information - doesn't stop it being defamatory when you repeat it or refer to it.

Every tweeter who repeated it was guilty of libel - that's why he got so many of them to reach settlements with him.

so If i buy a copy of teh Sun who libel someone, and sell it to my friend, I am guilty too?

If you buy a copy of the Sun and re-publish what they print then you are.

When you tweet, you are publishing information - that's why you can be liable for it's content.

[Jon MW]

I also notice you ignored my followers point

it was irrelevant

Lord McAlpine has made settlements with insignificant tweeters which amount to receiving an apology - the more influential the person who libels you the more damage they do; hence the proportionate increase in how much you should go after them.

[tikay]

...
Because she asks a question. You have to do an awful lot (as your post proves) to get from A-M to realise what its about.
...

really? seeing a line about the Newsnight show and seeing a line about her tweet and not even reading the whole of either story is an "awful lot"?

so its newsnight that have libelled him, not her.

Newsnight had to apologise, & paid £185,000 in damages. It is a matter of view, over which we differ, as to whether Mrs B, effectively, repeated the unfounded allegation. 

The man was accused of molesting children in a children's home, which, in today's climate, was a very serious & damaging allegation. It was later agreed by all patties that he had never been anywhere near the Children's home in his life.

Mrs B could not have been referring to anything else, given the huge media noise at the time. 

[tikay]

I also notice you ignored my followers point

it was irrelevant

Lord McAlpine has made settlements with insignificant tweeters which amount to receiving an apology - the more influential the person who libels you the more damage they do; hence the proportionate increase in how much you should go after them.

I believe settlements were made by several hundred people who re-tweeted or repeated it.

[outragous76]

The facts are that libel by inference (that inference being deicded by 1 man) is a very dangerous place to be!

Lets say we were talking about the poker community.

Negranu "libels" helmuth in a similar way. Are you suggesting a judge is able to assess inference? Or impact? When he has heard of neither, and knows nothign of which heis being asked to rule on?

This is why its dangerous. This is now common law, that we will all be subject to. And for that reason it is absolutley hilarious!

[MANTIS01]

Good debate. However, I am a busy moron so don't have the time or ability to comment.

[outragous76]

The judge seems to think the fact he has a  knighthood makes a difference!  Id say less that 5% of the population would have known him/told you anything meaningful about him. Id say that hasnt changed as a result of this case.