It appears Lord McAlpine is seeking, at least, an apology from Twitter users who linked his name to recent events – although he would be within his rights to seek fairly hefty financial compensation.
This seems completely fair to me and it’s really only a question of time before someone does take Twitter users to court for slander/lible for big money. This does does raise the question of what the future of Twitter holds.
Personally I’m not a huge fan and would be quite happy if it disappeared into the digital ether.

He’ll have a job suing all those people. How is going to prove slander/libel? Actually, which is it for Twitter?

If it is recorded it is libel. If it is spoken it is slander.

Twitter is recorded, therefore libel.

I’ve said this before, but the media is irrelevant. People should be accountable, or not, regardless of whether they’re commenting on Twitter, on TV, in the Guardian letters page, or with a loudhailer in the town centre.

I don’t really get why this ‘ooh, it’s on the internet’ reaction should make a fig of difference. Similarly, I don’t see how it’s got anything to do with ‘the future of Twitter’, any more than we’d be talking about shutting down FM radio because someone said something inappropriate on a phone-in.

Whether or not you’re a huge fan is also irrelevant. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. It’s not mandatory.

I seem to recall mcalpine comments on this very forum too.

As an aside,

When did it become illegal to be stupid? There’s been a few high-profile cases of common sense failure lately; the “Twitter joke trail” farce, the ‘racism’ cries at Frankie Boyle, the shitheel having a pop at Tom Daly, the halfwit on Facebook making inappropriate comments about April Jones. Probably others.

In the latter two cases at least, we’re looking at seriously unpleasant / disturbed people, but did they really merit suspended jail sentences? Ah, wait, I forgot, it’s on the Internet.

I seem to recall mcalpine comments on this very forum too.

I’m suprised they’re still here

Personally, I hope he manages to sue a few of the twitter posters

How many people did Armstrong manage to sue for libel whilst lying through his teeth? How many retractions got published by people who had been telling the truth? Anglo-saxon libel laws usually mean the richest player wins when there is doubt over the accuracy of accusations. That’ll be McAlpine then regardless of what the truth is.

Q. “Who is being accused”
A. “Lord McAlpine”

Is not slander or libel.

Q. “Does anyone know who had sex with kids?”
A. “Lord McAlpine”

Could be slander or libel.

He might go after the more high profile twitterers eg George Monbiot. Anyone stupid enough to libel someone, deserves to get sued.

Edukator – Member
How many people did Armstrong manage to sue for libel whilst lying through his teeth? How many retractions got published by people who had been telling the truth? Anglo-saxon libel laws usually mean the richest player wins when there is doubt over the accuracy of accusations. That’ll be McAlpine then regardless of what the truth is.

Armstrong won his liabel cases as he could prove the accusations were false (there was no evidence otherwise untill USADA reported).

You post reads to me like you think the rich should be found guilty regardless of the truth and you’re dissapointed he’s innocent, which doesn’t make any sense.

Q. “Who is being accused”
A. “Lord McAlpine”

Is not slander or libel.

Unfortunately, putting my hack hat on, it arguably is defamation. There’s something called ‘jigsaw identification’, where two differently slanted stories in two publications don’t individually make a defamatory statement against an identified person, but taken together, they do this.

Crude example: ‘The doper, a well-known tdf winner’ in one paper, and ‘the doper, a professional cyclist from northern England..’ in another.

In theory, both papers could get done for libel.

So by identifying the subject of the Newsnight story, the twitter users are completing jigsaw identification by linking him to the allegations.

My own view is that while scaring the shite out of Sally Bercow and Monbiot isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the main reason he’s doing it is to convince the BBC that he’s serious in going after them.

He might go after the more high profile twitterers eg George Monbiot. Anyone stupid enough to libel someone, deserves to get sued.

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot’s actions?

There was a great interview with his lawyer on World at One earlier.

Libel is libel, they look like they’re going for Sally Bercow/George Monbieot (sp?) initially but they’ve got the lot.

Seem to be taking the line ‘apologise now and it’ll be cheaper for you’.

great series of tweets by @JackofKent today explaining ins and outs of libel law and twitter for those that need to know. Been storified by someone too.

The problem with libel law in some countries is that it’s the media doing their job of reporting rather than the person accusing that gets done for libel. I don’t think you should be liable for prosection for reporting what others say, only for making a false accusation yourself.

In Mc Alpine’s case I think there is only one person he should be able to sue:

The unreliable witness

Edit: should Mr Messham have the right to sue me for calling him an unreliable witness when I’m simply reporting what others have said about him?

ransos,

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot’s actions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20299551

It is not a defence for an individual to say that he was simply repeating a statement by someone else. Just because something is out there does not make it OK to repeat.

The courts consider each tweet to be a libel, and the more often it is repeated, the more damage it can do and the more libel actions it may provoke.

Furthermore, when it comes to proving the truth of the allegation, it is insufficient to point to the fact that somebody has been accurately quoted – the publisher has to prove the substance of the allegation.

In other words, if I were to make an allegation about my boss that is retweeted by my friend – my friend must be able to prove the allegation, not just simply that I had said it.

No idea how correct that is, bu these are the source:
Niri Shan and Lorna Caddy are media lawyers for London-based law firm Taylor Wessing.

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot’s actions?

If I was McAlpine, my argument would be that as Monbiot is an established and reputable figure (leader writer for the Guardian), his word carries substantial weight as readers would assume his statements were well researched and therefore accurate. Hence his tweet would have a more significant affect on McAlpine’s reputation than just any old tory hating bigot, who can’t wait to put one in to them.

EDIT: I’d be bricking myself if I was GM, this could cost him a huge sum.

In much the same way that there are threads on here bemoaning poor use of the written word, so the access to communication that being online has provided has massively left people behind in their understanding of what one can and cannot say.

Years ago, few people had a voice. Defamation was largely held in very public court and the slurs tended to be widely “known” (think Wilde v Queensbury). Now, social media encourages a “here today, gone tomorrow” approach to expressing one’s thoughts. The trouble is that an idle thought that would never have seen the light of day is now casually committed to writing and posterity without a thought.

Yes, our defamation laws hugely favour those who are better financially equipped to take on the risk of the proceedings. And, yes, I think the laws are pretty good (in spite of the obvious failing of the defendant having to prove his “innocence”). But people are stupid, and now they’re living out their stupidity for all of us to see.

There is no real benefit to McAlpine suing any of those who defamed him on Twitter (or wherever), as the hassle of the actions would be significant, and the damages awarded against each person probably not worth the aggravation. But going after those who do have a voice – Monbiot and Bercow, for example – may help make other people think twice.

And the BBC, much as I love them, deserve a proper bollocking for their part in this. Along with that dickhead Schofield, who too could find himself having to explain his actions from the wrong side of the witness box.

In short: just because someone has given you the means of communication, doesn’t mean you should use it without thought for the consequence.

Still on the bright side, if GM is bancrupted and made homeless, perhaps the Guardian will find someone else and have a bit of variety in their articles. There’s only so many ‘Tesco is the devil and responsible for all evils on the planet’ articles you can read before you stop buying the paper. (Not that I like Tesco, I just want a bit of variety in my papers).

No idea how correct that is, bu these are the source:
Niri Shan and Lorna Caddy are media lawyers for London-based law firm Taylor Wessing.

I’ve never been all that about Taylor Wessing, but I think we can trust their commentary here – a law student couldn’t get this wrong!

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot’s actions?

If you are claiming for libel, you do not need to show that you have suffered any loss as damage is presumed.[/i]

http://www.pannone.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/13401/Defamation-Libel-and-Slander.pdf

I’ll be laughing my balls off if George Monbiot get’s what’s coming to him.

I’ll be laughing my balls off if George Monbiot get’s what’s coming to him.

The ultimate irony is he moved to Machynlleth to escape Tesco et al and now they’re opening a huge one just down the road from him.

When Emma Riley accused Armstrong of doping he already had a positive for cortisone when she had been his masseuse, and yet the court found her guilty of libel. Rich famous man versus poor woman. Even when courts find very wealthy people guilty of libel the fine is a tiny fraction of their wealth. Poor people such Riley lose most if not all their wealth.

British and American libel laws make it very hard to report the truth.

I don’t really get why this ‘ooh, it’s on the internet’ reaction should make a fig of difference. Similarly, I don’t see how it’s got anything to do with ‘the future of Twitter’, any more than we’d be talking about shutting down FM radio because someone said something inappropriate on a phone-in.

Whether or not you’re a huge fan is also irrelevant. Don’t like it? Don’t use it. It’s not mandatory.
This in the main

Though I disagree with

When did it become illegal to be stupid? There’s been a few high-profile cases of common sense failure lately; the “Twitter joke trail” farce, the ‘racism’ cries at Frankie Boyle, the shitheel having a pop at Tom Daly, the halfwit on Facebook making inappropriate comments about April Jones. Probably others.

They are judgement calls and , as this forum shows, what one person assumes to be funny others dont. I suppose we could debate whether offence is given or taken again [ please god no]

The ultimate irony is he moved to Machynlleth to escape Tesco et al and now they’re opening a huge one just down the road from him.

Yeah doesn’t he also live in a giant big **** off barn conversion despite divorcing (possibly, before Monbiot sues me), he’s had two children so managed to pollute the planet more than someone who’s had none and who commutes everyday in a Lamborghini Countach…..and because he live’s in the country he has to drive to get anywhere? Wouldn’t the green thing to do…. would be to live in a modern apartment in London, have no car at all and only have one child?

Surely the greenest thing to have done would be to top himself at an early age and donate his body to a woodland cemetery.

If you take it to your extreme level it would be to die and convert your body to food

No on who eats and breathes can be carbon neutral
Its seems daft to expect super high standards or else they are a hypocrit

FWIW stopping eating meat is the easiest thing to do to reduce your personal carbon footprint with it being split in thirds between food, transport and housing[energy usage] – you mention only one of these

Surely the greenest thing to have done would be to top himself at an early age and donate his body to a woodland cemetery.

I’ll suggest that to him, next time I’m in Mach. ‘Hey George, we had a chat on an internet forum about you and twitter and the general consensus was that the decent carbon neutral thing to do would be to top yourself and donate your body to a woodland cemetery. So, wadya think?’

Certainly be cheaper than getting sued by McAlpine…..

Monbiot retracted the message, and issued a full public apology. Given that the claims were already in the public domain, what loss has McAlpine suffered as a result of Monbiot’s actions?

Given that Monbiot is a high(er) profile tweeter, with a lot of followers who are likely to re-tweet his stuff, McAlpine’s lawyers may argue that his libel is more serious than say, if I had tweeted it, in the same way that the Daily Mail is likely to be more influential and widely-read than a parish magazine.

As others have said, you don’t have to demonstrate actual damage – just that the publication is a libel.

Falsely labelling (or helping label, in this case) someone as a child abuser is in the worst category of libels, so the potential damages may make it worth going after twitter users, even if their individual contribution to that libel is pretty small.

FWIW stopping eating meat is the easiest thing to do to reduce your personal carbon footprint with it being split in thirds between food, transport and housing[energy usage] – you mention only one of these

Who’s that addressed to.

Any actually…the GREENEST diet….is the one that can be produced most locally….for example….a lot of North Wales land is not suitable for arable farming…it’s greener for those locals to eat some meat than it is to import more fruit, veg and wheat.

I think Stanford did a large study that showed a small portion of meat during the week is the greenest diet. I like to point this out to green vegan hippies that I meet when riding in North Wales.

I suspect Tesco will be the real winners here, to see the biggest thorn in their side hoisted by his own petard!

I suspect Tesco will be the real winners here, to see the biggest thorn in their side hoisted by his own petard!

His personality that leant itself to picking fights and sticking it “to da man” got the better of him. He couldn’t resist mouthing off about the Tory establishment in this case and it turned round and buggered him in the arse…metaphorically speaking before anyone sues me

In your glee to rubbish a journalist, spare a thought for the truth yet again being buried.

it turned round and buggered him in the arse

Technically and metaphorically that is yet to come, hopefully through the courts as it will be highly entertaining, unless you are the one being rogered…..

It appears Lord McAlpine is seeking, at least, an apology from Twitter users who linked his name to recent events –

Given that mcalpine says he doesn’t have a tv or Internet or get newspapers I doubt it was his idea to track down twitterists. There’s a ‘specialist company’ doing so on his behalf and I suspect it’s more likely that they approached him than vise versa. So I think what we’re really seeing is a product launch using mcalpines case for PR.

In your glee to rubbish a journalist, spare a thought for the truth yet again being buried.

What truth?

I’m not sure Monbiot actually made a defamatory statement though did he? He said:

“I looked up Lord #McAlpine on t’internet. It says the strangest things.”

“I can confirm that Lord #McAlpine was Conservative Party Treasurer when Mrs Thatcher was prime minister”

“Historical fact of the week: Lord #McAlpine was a well-known treasurer of the Conservative Party during the Thatcher era.”

Those statements are all perfectly accurate, nor do they technically acuse anyone of anything. He was clearly intending to make people aware of the rumours, but is that enough for defamation?

Ctrl-F search “innuendo”

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-of-free-expression/defamation/defamation-elements-of-a-claim.html

It seem’s it’s still POTENTIALLY libel (before Monbiot sues me )…..

Well, he could have argued that quite strongly….if he hadn’t posted this a day or two later as part of his grovel.

“The tweets I sent which hinted – as I assumed to be the case – that Lord McAlpine was the person the child abuse victim Steve Messham was talking about were so idiotic that, looking back on them today, I cannot believe that I wrote them.”

I suppose he could now argue that the actual tweet was so poorly written that it did not convey that intention, but he’s on pretty dodgy ground.