"It's only the Internet"

[pritch]

There has just been an interesting case in Britain, a Guardian columnist sued a Sun, Daly Mail, columnist about a comment on Twitter. Some people like to use the statement, "it's only the internet", or babble about free speech without any understanding of what that actually means. Speech isn't necessarily free, it can cost.

So there was an anti government demonstration during which a war memorial was defaced. Ms Hopkins, a controversial right wing columnist, posted a tweet implying that Ms Monroe, a left wing writer on food and poverty matters, approved of such behaviour. After some back and forth Ms Monroe sued - and has now won.

Had Hopkins made the comment in one of her columns, she may have received the support of her paper but she made it on Twitter presumably as a private citizen. The court has awarded Monroe 24,000 pounds, her lawyers are seeking 300,000 pounds costs from Hopkins.

A tweet can only be 140 characters max, but can prove very expensive.


Twitter.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/10/jack-monroe-wins-twitter-libel-case-against-katie-hopkins

[R650R]

Just as I posted in elated matter in a recent thread and public statement can be regarded as defamation whether its online, print or tv/radio interview.

In the case of her paper column, a good editor or legal team would have redacted the pertinent lines before it got to print. Or if it did make it she would have more expensive lawyers on her side.

Just because someone else is getting away with it doesn't make it right. A lot of defamoatory stuff goes unchallenged as the offended person doesn't have the time or money to chase it or its published on a site or publication that doesn't register on their radar. Eg some disgruntled Iranian who may have beend enied a kiwibiker forum account could be slandering this site but because very few if any Arabic speakers here no one would be any wiser.....

[Tazz]

You have to be careful everywhere these days.

Left wing political party in Germany handed out a bunch of fliers (well, targeted fliers addressed to right wing politicians or supporters) saying something along the lines of if you don't like it here you can fuck off and we will put you on a plane or boat to Africa.

One recipient said, alright, throw me on a boat to Africa please! They said no, so he took them to court and was awarded the costs for a boat trip (possibly cruise :laugh:) to Africa.

I'm not sure I always agree when people disagree with somethings someone else has published (interweb or else where) to the point they take it to court, but sometimes it can be a good thing to remind people that there are consequences for attempting to treat people like shit.

If you have a good (better than mine anyway) grasp of written word you can actually be insulting as fuck without it being so obvious, bring back that level of 'free speech' I reckon.

[Akzle]

fucken jews .

[Swoop]

... a good editor ...

Fuck all chance of finding one of those in NZ.
Rarer than an honest politician.

[pritch]

The three characters in this case are interesting, all write for a living and I have read them all at one time or another. Less so Hopkins, but she courts controversy so frequently comes to notice for her comments.

She may have felt she had the moral high ground originally because she undertook training as an army officer. But Jack Monroe has a brother in the RAF, her dad was a para in the Falklands and she applied unsuccessfully to join the RAF herself so she has her own military cred.

Hopkins fucked up because she was really gunning for Laurie Penny but went after Monroe by mistake. To compound matters she wouldn't back down and so it cost her.

I look forward to reading future columns by all three.

[Banditbandit]

fucken jews .

I'm sorry (well, not really, just being polite) this response has got boring ..

[TheDemonLord]

Laurie Penny can go fuck herself....

but on a related note existing legislation to cover what happens on the internet is woefully inadequate and with Politicians and lawyers not being the most tech-savvy professionals, I don't see this changing in the future.

However I ask this - in the Western world, we have a long standing tradition of ridicule of Public figures (political cartoons, Lampponing skits, Comedy shows etc.) and furthermore the judge noted that the damage to the character was "not very serious or grave" - there needs to be careful thought about what is the threshold legal action to be taken over an Internet work and where there is doubt - I would err on the side of letting people speak freely as opposed to any form of legislation.

[Jeff Sichoe]

I don't think hurting someones feelings should be punishable.

[pritch]

I don't think hurting someones feelings should be punishable.

It depends, even on KB there are limits - although they do seem very elastic. You can hurt somebody's feelings if that what spins your crank, but basically what you say has to be the truth. If you publish things that are not true you can be held liable, and the court in this instance decided that posting it on Twitter was publishing it.

What used to happen to newspapers can now happen to individuals and these individuals have neither tame lawyers nor insurance. The outcome is likely to be bankruptcy.

[Akzle]

I'm sorry (well, not really, just being polite) this response has got boring ..
http://ind5.ccio.co/Vr/Ks/UW/172896073164000328ubNSI8bYc.jpg

be fair, i'm no longer shot-gunning it at every opportunity. you could say i'm being more jewdicious in my application of it.

The outcome is likely to be bankruptcy.
or someone flipping the bird while laying sikk donuts on your front lawn


I don't think hurting someones feelings should be punishable.
rbgiafp.

but, you're a dinosaur now son. you have to be all encompassing and huggy-shit, and LGBTQQF49@Z42 sensitive. cos if some gay is butthurt (oh!) about shit you say, then it's all liek :spanking:
(and the kind of spanking you pay a lawyer $400 an hour for, not a prozzie, so...the bad kind.)

personally, i'm offended by any cunt that gets offended, so if you're offended by me, i'm offended by you, making you the one at fault.
:motu: fucken stupid lawyerjewcunts.

[Banditbandit]

Laurie Penny can go fuck herself....

but on a related note existing legislation to cover what happens on the internet is woefully inadequate and with Politicians and lawyers not being the most tech-savvy professionals, I don't see this changing in the future.

However I ask this - in the Western world, we have a long standing tradition of ridicule of Public figures (political cartoons, Lampponing skits, Comedy shows etc.) and furthermore the judge noted that the damage to the character was "not very serious or grave" - there needs to be careful thought about what is the threshold legal action to be taken over an Internet work and where there is doubt - I would err on the side of letting people speak freely as opposed to any form of legislation.

New Zealand's libel laws are intended to do just that. "fair Comment" is a defense if a public figure takes a libel case against tyou. You still have to put up an argument, but a comedian was taken to court by a politician and argued "fair comment". The courts accepted the defense and said that public figures, especially politicians, put themselves into the public arena and people were entitled to comment.

[TheDemonLord]

New Zealand's libel laws are intended to do just that. "fair Comment" is a defense if a public figure takes a libel case against tyou. You still have to put up an argument, but a comedian was taken to court by a politician and argued "fair comment". The courts accepted the defense and said that public figures, especially politicians, put themselves into the public arena and people were entitled to comment.

So - extrapolate that comment out - someone posts a Video on Youtube and people comment on it.

Does the Libel laws cover that scenario? Does it consider that posting a video is putting themselves into the public arena?

Secondly - assume someone's career is a full time Youtube content creator and someone takes exception to a comment or content made by the creator and using Youtubes community strikes feature, gets the channel taken down - do they have any recourse within NZ law as Fair Comment?

The issue is that the internet and specifically Social media makes it possible for interactions that in an offline scenario would not be considered Public Arena, but due to the connectivity of the internet these are now very much so public.

This is not a critique of the Libel law itself - more a critique of people trying to use existing legislation which was written without consideration of the internet (and how it operates) to cover things that happen online and the net result (THE PUN!) is that you get very grey rulings which set bad legal precedents, ruled by people who don't fully understand the working of the internet.

[pritch]

and the net result (THE PUN!) is that you get very grey rulings which set bad legal precedents, ruled by people who don't fully understand the working of the internet.

That can be true, but in the Monroe v Hopkins case the court went into considerable detail about Twitter and how it worked and how many people would have read the comments.

It's a long read but interesting (to some).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf

[Banditbandit]

So - extrapolate that comment out - someone posts a Video on Youtube and people comment on it.

Does the Libel laws cover that scenario? Does it consider that posting a video is putting themselves into the public arena?

Yes - you can even be charged with libel for a private e-mail. Saying something nasty about a third person is always illegal .. as long as the person being libeled can show how they are libeled. The media does not matter.

The only real issue that the internet poses is that you have to be in a country to be subject to the laws. The internet allows complete international access - so you don't have to be in the same country - that makes it much harder to prosecute.


Secondly - assume someone's career is a full time Youtube content creator and someone takes exception to a comment or content made by the creator and using Youtubes community strikes feature, gets the channel taken down - do they have any recourse within NZ law as Fair Comment?

In this case, I am sorry - I have no idea what you mean. I'm a luddite.


The issue is that the internet and specifically Social media makes it possible for interactions that in an offline scenario would not be considered Public Arena, but due to the connectivity of the internet these are now very much so public.

This is not a critique of the Libel law itself - more a critique of people trying to use existing legislation which was written without consideration of the internet (and how it operates) to cover things that happen online and the net result (THE PUN!) is that you get very grey rulings which set bad legal precedents, ruled by people who don't fully understand the working of the internet.

Yes, the international and open nature of the internet has changed things.

[TheDemonLord]

That can be true, but in the Monroe v Perry case the court went into considerable detail about Twitter and how it worked and how many people would have read the comments.

It's a long read but interesting (to some).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf

Interesting read - I don't agree with the judgement myself, but the reasoning is sound - although unless I missed it - I'm not sure how he came to the figure of 16k for one tweet, 8K for the other in terms of damages

[mashman]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/635913101991790855-hurt-feelings-form-page-001.jpg

[pritch]

Ms Hopkins stays classy, says the bar is set too low - as low as her labia.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/15/katie-hopkins-jack-monroe-libel-ruling-bbc-mailonline

[Zedder]

Ms Hopkins stays classy, says the bar is set too low - as low as her labia.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/15/katie-hopkins-jack-monroe-libel-ruling-bbc-mailonline


She's got a history of being lippy judging by the article on the same page where she cost the Mail Online 150,000 pounds with that false accusation about the Muslim family.