The Dangers for Libellous Tweeters in the UK(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
The Dangers for Libellous Tweeters in the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20299551
6 comments
The difference, as the law as currently pratised seems to work, is the difference between stating a view and broadcasting it. A tweet is publicly available (even if only a select view will ever care to see it) so is assumed to be a broadcast (in the same way a radio statsion listened to by just four people and their dogs would).
Sometimes tweets are taken as incitement to others to take the view (or take actino on the view). This is often over-zealous though not always wrong: take ol' wangy-eye of the BNP and his suggestion in a tweet that peopel picket a gay couple's home for instance.
Sometimes tweets are taken as incitement to others to take the view (or take actino on the view). This is often over-zealous though not always wrong: take ol' wangy-eye of the BNP and his suggestion in a tweet that peopel picket a gay couple's home for instance.
"...in previous cases the courts have made it very clear that they expect a defendant to demonstrate that he or she has engaged in responsible journalism before the defence will succeed, including verifying the story and giving the subject an opportunity to comment."
This is just lunacy and only highlights the urgent need to abolish current libel/defamation laws and introduce new ones protecting free speech.
This is just lunacy and only highlights the urgent need to abolish current libel/defamation laws and introduce new ones protecting free speech.
I don't understand how retweeting makes one liable for libel. Isn't it just an attributed quote? Is accurately quoting someone really a punishable offense in the UK? This is a frightening idea, even outside the realm of Twitter.
Just an attributed quote? If I start quoting passages from Mein Kampf I'm sure my intentions are understood. But you're saying that I can just claim; "It's not me saying this, I'm just quoting Adolf, don't blame me".
People need to think before they act instead of just sheep herding themselves by mindlessly retweeting crap some other donkey is saying on the Internet. If a few of these idiots need to be taken to court as an example, so be it.
People need to think before they act instead of just sheep herding themselves by mindlessly retweeting crap some other donkey is saying on the Internet. If a few of these idiots need to be taken to court as an example, so be it.
Does the same apply to journalists? If not, where's the line?
Taken to court for exercising their free speech rights? Even if it's "crap some other donkey is saying on the Internet", it's still protected by law in a lot of jurisdictions. And I'm thankful for that.
There is a difference between "free speech rights" and not taking responsibility for your free speech rights. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can (or should) be able to just quote anything or anyone without being accountable for it. If you feel like you should be able to retweet "crap" that's being said about someone without knowing the facts (defamation of character) you should also be man enough to be accountable if it turns out you were wrong.
Free speech isn't a licence to kill.
Free speech isn't a licence to kill.
Speaking isn't killing.
Of course, it's good that a person be held accountable for their tweets and other communications. Neo-nazi or racist speech can be condemned, libel and false speech can be condemned. A person doing this can be outed as a bigot or liar.
But is that a reason for arresting a person? In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution says no. In other countries, apparently this is allowable, which is a dangerous tool in the hands of authorities.
Of course, it's good that a person be held accountable for their tweets and other communications. Neo-nazi or racist speech can be condemned, libel and false speech can be condemned. A person doing this can be outed as a bigot or liar.
But is that a reason for arresting a person? In the USA, the First Amendment to the Constitution says no. In other countries, apparently this is allowable, which is a dangerous tool in the hands of authorities.
Would it be better to have a DMCA style process for deleting anonymous online libel?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18694505
While racism is deplorable, and should be discouraged, it's a scary violation of human rights and free speech to arrest a person for expressing such views.