Libel Gone mad

[Tal]

Michael Tugendhat is an outstanding civil lawyer, particularly on media issues.

Not saying his opinions can't be criticised or political pressures can't be involved in decision-making, but I'd choose his analysis over my own every day of the week.

No issues over precedence; this is a High Court settlement, rather than a ruling by an appeal court

there's only Eady J who I'd place above him on the bench for the understanding of media law and privacy, no doubt.

I think he got this one wrong, and badly, is all.

Fair enough. As you know, that is the beauty of our legal system. And why so many are in work.

not if the proposed reforms to legal aid go through, but that's a different topic.

It is possible the Jackson reforms have done more than the profession has realised yet.

[kinboshi]

This week's b3ta newsletter subject line:

I've got smoothie all down my chin *innocent face*

Made me laugh

[Lucky]

Verdict won't be overturned as Sally's already said she won't be appealing it and I think they've agreed damages to be paid too.

I agree totally with what Tikay's saying about people being held responsible for what they write on social media - you can't just say what you like without facing the consequences.

However I really don't see how the original tweet was libellous, or how it caused damage even if you accept it was libellous. If anyone reading the tweet did indeed attribute the same meaning as the High Court has done, then they must have already known about the allegations, in which case there's been no damage done. (Very clumsily put,sorry)

Yes she was clearly drawing attention to the shitstorm which was festering on Twitter, which was stupid and rather childish, but that's a long way from directly inferring that there was truth behind that shitstorm.

So she will not be appealing then?

She's never been appealing to me.

[Laxie]

I never paid attention to it at the time because all sorts of random accusations were coming out of the woodwork about all sorts.  I never paid attention to it on Sky earlier today either because I just wasn't bothered.  It wasn't until a thread became six pages long on blonde that I decided to have a proper look at the whole thing.  If you're not in the know, you weren't to know...imo.

[redarmi]

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.

For the people that had never heard of Lord McAlpine before all of this, he's now just the guy that was involved in that children's home case. Sally Bercow is a big part of the reason why his public position has shifted from being a relative unknown to being a man accused of sexual exploitation of children, of which he was entirely innocent.

I don't see any logical progression where you can agree that Newsnight/ITV should have been fined, but that Mrs Bercow should have been found not guilty of libel.

Is this really true Dan?  Strikes me that it was McAlpines decision to sue her for that tweet that was responsible for that shift and his main reasons for doing that are political.  Lots of people tweeted about McAlpine at the time but he chose to prosecute Sally Bercow on political grounds which seems pretty petty to me.

[The Camel]

If she hadn't written "innocent face" after her question, would she still have committed a libel?

[mulhuzz]

If she hadn't written "innocent face" after her question, would she still have committed a libel?

Absolute not, no.

[Tal]

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.

For the people that had never heard of Lord McAlpine before all of this, he's now just the guy that was involved in that children's home case. Sally Bercow is a big part of the reason why his public position has shifted from being a relative unknown to being a man accused of sexual exploitation of children, of which he was entirely innocent.

I don't see any logical progression where you can agree that Newsnight/ITV should have been fined, but that Mrs Bercow should have been found not guilty of libel.

Is this really true Dan?  Strikes me that it was McAlpines decision to sue her for that tweet that was responsible for that shift and his main reasons for doing that are political.  Lots of people tweeted about McAlpine at the time but he chose to prosecute Sally Bercow on political grounds which seems pretty petty to me.

He initially issued against everybody who tweeted or retweeted, but decided to drop hands against everyone who had fewer than 500 followers if they made a donation to Children in Need.

The Bercow money will be going to charity, too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/21/lord-mcalpine-twitter-defamation-cases

[TommyD]

If she hadn't written "innocent face" after her question, would she still have committed a libel?

Absolute not, no.

This is completely the point the law is making.  If you genuinely don't know why X is trending you say 'Why is X trending?'  If you want to appear all knowy winky to your 'fans' then you at some passive pretentious BS on the end which you think wouldn't stop you from backing out of your statement if someone calls you on it.

Excellent verdict IMO.