Twitter Twits To Do Bird?

[Mr Mystery]

Hurrah! Almost a sub-gutter press title.

Have a read of this article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257) folks.

Now I'm aware that some of our American chums might bring up freedom of speech over all, but please read the entire article. It's quite informative!

Seems that rational thought is trying to punch it's way into the Twittersphere. No safety in numbers, and the same laws (well, more or less) seem to apply.

Thoughts folks?

[eldargal]

Well it doesn't seem to be against freedom of speech. I mean you are free to say things but you can still be charged with libel or contempt of court, the internet shouldn't change that.

[Wolfshade]

Technology has outpaced law quite a way.

For instance: http://www.out-law.com/page-9858

It is a tar pit, but one must consider each act to be a published work in the public domain and treated as such.

[Mr Mystery]

I guess the safest way for Newspapers to remain squeaky clean on the Interwebs is to a) not print utter rubbish b) attempt proper, fact checked journalism c) stop making stuff up.

I see where The Times is coming from, in that me simply reading the article shouldn't count as a new defamation, but then, The Times and all other newspapers do seem to have a curious grasp on what constitutes truth, so some could say it has a certain poetic justice.

[Wolfshade]

There are some issues, for instance, if I were to provide evidence to a journalist of some evil corporation's evil deeds and then the journalist publishes the story, the sue for defemation and it transpires that everything was made up/faked then there needs to be some defence for the paper.

[Mr Mystery]

There is though. The paper or indeed individual has the defence of 'hey, I relied on third party info'. Provided the faked documents weren't clearly fake (written in crayon, no letter heads etc) that's a pretty solid defence, and can be settled remarkably quickly.

I suppose there is the other side to this....I was nearly defamed by a paper claiming I killed my Dad (I didn't. He's not dead, and I was 500 miles away at the time and in fact the act never happened. Turned out someone else with almost my name did however nobble his Dad). Managed to pick up on this and bawled them out.

However, under this ruling, had they gone to print I could have legally torn them a new one (still won't tell me where my details were obtained). And then accessed their archive, read the article again, and boom, new defamation.

ENDLESSCASHMONIES!

[Wildeybeast]

Mystery, that case just comes back to what you were saying earlier about checking facts. It would have been incredibly simple to check whether or not your father was still alive and ensure they have actually got the name right. They have a duty to ensure they check the facts of any story they publish, especially in 'controversial' cases. Unless they can prove they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the veracity of a story, they can't use the defence of 'third party info'.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.


Still, I'm all for the Internet being policed. I know Anonymous would tut at that, but there has to be accountability out there.

But much like many good ideas, putting it into practice is the issue.

[Wildeybeast]

I'd agree. As with any form of media, the problem comes in balancing law and order against public freedom.