Slashdot Mirror
Mother Sues After Bebo Story Hits Press
slick_shoes notes a story out of England: a woman named Amanda Hudson is suing six national newspapers for defamation and breach of privacy after they ran stories based on her 15-year-old daughter's exaggerated claims about her party, published on her Bebo site. The party was held at the family's £4m villa in Spain, and the daughter's account claimed that jewelery had been stolen and furniture and a television set thrown into the swimming pool; in addition there were claims of sex and drug use. The mother says that this was all falsehood and exaggeration. A number of newspapers picked up claims and photos from Bebo and ran them nationally. From the article: "The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
> Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites
Isn't that what newspaper reporters and editors are for?
Now anybody's journal and stories can be handed over to newspaper presses at any time. But is the newspaper actually responsible? I mean, her daughter did publish this to a public forum... doesn't that make it fact under the law of wikiality?
The fact that some party thrown by a rich 15 year old girl is national news is kind-of depressing. Am I missing something?
How about making sure everything is legit before holding it out in public as-such? It shouldn't matter if it comes from Myspace, Bebo, or the LAPD - it should all be verified, in triplicate.
Website Hosting
Noone wants truth in reporting, the newspaper should countersue for potential loss of profit and defamation of journalistic reputation! People want drama, gossip, and shock value rumor mongering, what ELSE are they going to talk about for days and days???
Never disregard the raw power inherent to stupidity... they call it "dumb luck" for a reason...
Your privacy is invading our public.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If she published it on the web how does her age protect her? Actually how is someone to know the age of the publisher within reasonable certainty?
If the mother should be mad at anyone it is at the daughter. This is just one big "duh" case. Its sad to see that "lack of self responsibility" crowd exists on both sides of the pond.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I hope that they succeed. It would is nice to know that when they actually claim it is news, it is not a piece of fiction more in line with Harlequin romance novels.
"The party was held at the family's £4m villa in Spain, and the daughter's account claimed that jewelery had been stolen and furniture and a television set thrown into the swimming pool; in addition there were claims of sex and drug use. The mother says that this was all falsehood and exaggeration" Yeah. The villa is only worth £3.5m. And it was actually a DVD player that was thrown into the swimming pool. Oh and there was no drug use, only sex.
Hey, bitch - buy your daughter a damned dictionary and have her look up the meaning of the word "publish".
Then you look up the word "parent" and do your fucking job (hint - it doesn't involve suing a third party when your spawn does something stupid).
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
If they had written a story about the blog entry?
It seems to me that you couldnt possibly get in trouble for saying "According to her blog on myspace.com little suzy rich girls party got out of hand and someone threw a TV out the window"
I mean, thats certainly a true statement. If that would be acceptable to print without verifying the truth of the actual event then this isnt going to have much of an impact one way or another.
Personally I dont like the idea of a news paper regurgitating a blog as truth. Its one thing to refer to the blog, they way you might refer to another publication (ie "ABC news called florida for bush at 10:30").
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
The only relevant fact that newspapers needed to check was that it was actually the 15-year old daughter that put it up for the world to see. Other than that, as the legal guardian, if the mother didn't want her daughter to post this information, she should have been a better parent.
There might actually be a case others have against the mother for defamation of character, since she is responsible for the actions of her daughter, and her daughter might have defamed them.
I wish parents would stop blaming other people for their own failings. Until their children come off age, what the kids do and what happens to the kids is the parents' sole responsibility.
Bebo Babe's Barcelona Bash: Burglary, Buggery, Breaking
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Newspapers have always had the responsibility to verify their stories, why should that change simply because the information's off the web?
in hell would anyone take anything published on a social networking site to be anything but falsehood and exaggeration?
And yes depressing it is that such a story would be national news.
"And today in Italy kids.... PARTIED?!?! ZOMG?!?1"
This includes geek bloggers, soccer moms and professional reporters. You post something with the impression that it is true and don't verify...then you should be help accountable. For example. A post recently posted ON slashdot that the RIAA MADE dell remove stereo output from some of its computers. Now it seems that it may not be so true, or again that is the rumor. If it is in fact found out to be of "no merit" that blogger/slashdot post SHOULD be found responsible for losses against dell & the riaa if they were able to make a case for that. Something to think about, just because you can doesn't mean you aren't responsible.
For the lady and her daughter - abject stupidity. Once you put something on the internet, it's there for life - if you don't realise this, you are not qualified to use the internet. Just as if yo don't realise cars can kill, if improperly driven, you have no business being behind the wheel.
For the newspapers - whatever happened to validating your sources? Is this something that only happens in the movies, or has the average rag descended to the point where all it does is reprint salacious and unverified fiction from all and any sources. They really do deserve to be sued out of existence in that case.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Errorneous reporting you say?
"The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
Aren't journalists supposed to do this ANYWAY?
...in reporting? Maybe they do things differently in the UK, but certainly in the US, as Fox News demonstrated, there's no such legal requirement.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
From the article:
Too bad. When you publish stuff on the internet for all of the world to see it really undermines your privacy claims. Now, if this girl only allowed her stories to be seen by those she had designated as friends, then she might have a leg to stand on with respect to privacy.
Also, the defamation claim is curious. I haven't ever seen a case where the the originator of the false statements is the same person suing the newspapers for making false statements.
The paper has a duty to check facts that it publishes. How do they know that the 'daughter' publishing this information is really this woman's daughter at all, and not a jealous friend who wasn't invited?
Journalism has undergone a frightening shift in the last thirty years. Don't get me wrong: it has always been about selling eyes to the advertisers. But there used to be professional standards. People could take pride in saying they were a journalist. Journalists like Woodward and Bernstein were heroes protecting the public interest.
Now journalism is just another branch of the entertainment industry. Any sense of professional pride seems to be gone. Truth and accuracy don't matter.
It's not just stories like this, either. Journalists routinely slap their names on unedited press releases and call them stories without fact checking a damn thing. Politicians and businesses know that journalists are too lazy to do their jobs.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I would be very, very surprised to learn that they weren't having sex and using drugs. 15? Rich? Sheeeit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You publish something on the internet...but you get mad when it's exposed to others?
Uh huh...
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Some can be found here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1022756/Trail-destruction-British-familys-4-4m-Marbella-villa-400-crash-Facebook-party.html
By US standards this case would likely be tossed out.
The first story I found from the Daily Mail included getting a response from the mother, quotes from other party goers, etc
Just because the mother denies (possibly criminal, depending on how hitting her daughter occurred and what the laws are regarding serving minors alcohol over there) the report doesn't mean it was defamation or they didn't do their jobs. Maybe the quotes were made up, and maybe the pictures from the girl's blog didn't show what they seemed to (teenagers paired up in bed, passed out drunk girls, young men/teenagers carrying beer around) but we shouldn't assume that.
According to wiki in the UK
The US uses a somewhat similar standard. If you've got claims by the daughter, quotes from friends of the mother, and from party goers (and these are not fabricated) then to me "due care" has probably been taken.
You mean when I read that QT_pie3478 posted that "my partiez wuz schweet y'allzzz!!!1" that in fact, her partiez may not have been schweet after all? And that in fact, that source might not be reliable? The horror! If only there were some way to tell that the source might not be reliable...
stuff |
is that it's a libel case in Britain. Judgment for plaintiff.
To sue for libel in Britain, you don't have to be a resident, and neither does your defendant. All you have to have is one instance of "publication" (i.e. communicating the information to a third party), and you're set.
Who said the First Amendment didn't have any teeth?
They published remarks from a 15-year-old on a social networking site. Should the newspapers be surprised they're getting sued. I don't think so.
Wouldnt this be perfect way to make some cash?
Stay with me here:
1) Throw lavish party and get shocked by bill.
2) Post story exaggerating the facts.
3) Hope newspapers to pick up the story and run with it. (Sweet they did!)
$) Sue! Its not a real story!
5) Profit!!!!!
Call me crazy but this is really sad. I hope they dont get away with it. Whichever side is wrong.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
Yes, and that is copyright law and as such there are exceptions.
I'm so mixed on this. I think that the papers/media were wrong to invade this individual's privacy over nothing other than rumor/fantasy. So what if the girl put it up on her social networking site? She could also put up how she is dating an alien from a UFO and has been given replicator tech and used it to build her own vacation home. Would you believe it without basic fact checking?
If my kids draw fantasy crap that they want for their next birthday and post it to myspace would the media instantly believe that I'll have real life Barbie fairies and unicorns or a real life Spiderman/Superman/Batman will attend? Come on.
Oh, but if my kids make up a story about how they've been drinking, doing drugs, having sex or being arrested though that'll be instantly believed to be true? If any one was arrested than there should be a police report on it. I know it would be beyond the average /. user to check, but we aren't generally throwing up inaccurate information to be published/viewed by everyone under the sun.
What if the media focused in on any given /. user for their comments about having a wild party last night? (O.k. It wouldn't be the media that focused on that user, but you get the concept.)
So the mother is suing because the newspapers reported something her own daughter wrote. Who should she be suing for libel - the newspapers or her daughter?
I think the press have too much power, they do no report the news exactly - they report only news that might increase exposure or sales in such an exaggerated fashion as to further their aims.
...to name a few of the more serious ones.
And in the meantime bad things happen because of this.
In the UK they have:-
- talked up a mass stampede to a major lender and caused it to be nationalized after most of the customers withdrew their funds.
- numerous instances of trial by media when only a distorted representation of one side has been displayed
- built up fuel shortages by excessively warning about lack of fuel so everybody panic buys
- increased the repercussions of a already weakened house market by sensationalist reporting
- probably caused to suicide of a scientist by releasing his name in response to a whistle blower report
They seem not to care who they trample on, simply unleashing a legal army or buying off anybody who complains. In many cases simply changing the way the news is reported to a more balanced and sensible method would suffice.
This is simply not acceptable, and people have to be held to account. Only one time can I think of a press editor, CEO or anybody being held to account and that was Piers Morgan over the faked army abuse photographs in Iraq.
Something should be done, but I cannot think of a suitable answer. Suggestions anybody?
It's so good to know that stories about a party posted on someone's web page are considered news these days.
So the daughter is a stupid, spoiled little rich cunt who threw a wild party then was even stupider by telling the whole world about it. The mother is a stupid spoiled rich cunt who, instead of doing a good job of raising her kid, or instead of finding an appropriate way to punish her kid and those who trashed the house, wants to sue newspapers for reporting the story (and yes it is a legitimate story.)
I hope the mother get royally spanked over this whole mess.
If my child ever hosted a party that just about destroyed my house, words couldn't describe the beating said child would endure. Plus he or she (no child as of yet) would definitely have to live with the grandparents for awhile.
And don't get all PC on me, I just don't care. My father kept me in line with fear of his hand, and I will do the same with my child.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
I think reliability of information posted by a teenage girl on Bebo ranks up there with BBC World News. How else would they fill ten minutes of their daily morning broadcast with news from Zimbabwe, while their nearest reporter is sitting in Johannesburg some 1200 miles away?
This could be a money making scam -
1) Post fake lurid posts on social networking site
2) wait for press to pick up on lurid posts
3) claim the posts are fake and sue for defamation.
4) Profit
No ??? needed.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Because she's doing exactly the same thing.
before people learn not to post stories that they don't want the whole world reading? I hear stories like this time after time, and its always, "They should respect my privacy." Well, guess what... if you post information publicly over a global connection that EVERYONE has access to, then you have no privacy. That said, I do think the media are idiots for taking "credible" information from the social networking page of a 15 year old girl. I think that they should absolutely be held responsible, especially for a story that is so damaging to a person's character. There's a reporter somewhere that should be fired for this.
The other folks just picked up on the original publicized story and repeated it. Shouldn't she instead be suing the daughter for the alleged erroneous publication? Apparently they want to redefine what is considered publication for public consumption.
As in I place a stupid sign in my garden and sue because a helicopter snaps a picture of it and use the argument that I only intended it to be seen by my immediate neighbors. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just getting older and wiser or if instead the world really is going down the flusher.
-[d]-
Its patently false. There are places that the limit is ridiculous (UK its 5 w/ a parent), less strict (many places in Europe its 16) or identical to the US. Other places, alcohol can only be purchased or consumed at certain times, or not at all.
Don't publish what you read on bathroom walls, either. Just a recommendation.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"6 UK Newspapers published a news story based on what was posted on a social site?"
"6 UK Newspapers published a news story based on what was posted on a social site!"
"6 UK Newspapers published a news story based on what was posted on a social site!!"
hmnn, nope I still can't believe it after typing it thrice, really, SIX UK newspapers published a news story based on what they read in something called Bebo? Really?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
There are a number of problems with this. In the UK the libel laws are quite different and the whole "absence of malice" defense that will get you a pass in the US does not apply. Therefore, the mother probably does have a case in the UK and will win.
The newspaper probably did not get authorization to republish the pictures from the web site. They were not reporting on what was on the web site but stealing the content that was published there. This is certainly a copyright problem and the prior publication of the material "on the Internet" means nothing. They took the material without authorization and used it to the detrement of the girl, her parents, etc. This should be a warning to anyone that just takes material and republishes it.
As far as fact-checking is concerned, obviously there was none and no editorial oversight. For a blog to steal the photos and commentary from a site is one thing - for a newspaper to do so should result in the reporter and editor both getting fired for not doing their job. If they had written a story about how this appeared on the web and how interesting it was without reusing the same materials that might have been a little different. Pointless, but different.
The fact that something was put on the Internet does not give everyone on the planet the right to republish it and use it for their own purposes and/or gain. There is such a thing as copyright. It would be nice if people would understand that. Clearly we are creating a generation that has utterly no understanding of that at all. If I can see it, it is mine is the new thinking.
I guess this is the result. Post it on the Internet and someone will steal it.
An interesting observation. This happened in Spain, and was written about on Bebo. In Spanish, "bebo" means I drink :-)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Media = Bad
Teenage Girl = Good.
"Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
If it's on teh interwebs, it has too be true right?!
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
Newspapers will have to verify what they print!? How the hell will they be able to lie their arses off all the time? Oh noes!
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Mrs Hudson said her daughter has also suffered greatly because of the breach of her privacy. "Jodie is 15 years old," she said. "She did not consent to the publication in the media of any photograph of her or her party, or of any material that she wrote on her Bebo site."
Looks like she learned about it the hard way. What you post on-line is public info.
Then I hand them an after action report from the CIA released under the FOIA concerning the overthrow of the government of Iran, known as TPAJAX. I quote, with some pointers and emphasis:
"In July support was sought from the PW [Psychological Warfare] Staff. Both the branch [of the CIA] and higher levels were anxious to have certain items, including the texts of news articles, commentaries and editorials, appear in papers in this country... This support was not forthcoming. It appeared to the branch as if the staff lacked contacts capable of placing material so the American publisher was unwitting as to it's source, as well as being able to see that no changes in theme or emphasis were made. In contrast to this relatively ineffective venture, the Iran desk of the State Department was able to place a CIA study in Newsweek, using the normal channel of desk officer to journalist... it does appear that some improvement of capabilities might be desirable. Either those contacts used to secure the unwitting publication of material should be expanded and improved, or else there should be provision made for passing material directly to cleared editors and owners of press media."
This operation was carried out, according to the report, with 89 persons aware of it, which was "excessive."
So, yes, there is no doubt that a small number of CIA agents illegally ousted a democratic government, using the media as part of their PsyOps. To think that such operations are not part of the government's current arsenal is completely naive.
Check it out for yourself.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/iran-cia-intro.pdf
Journalism's origins stem from the reporting of shiploads of trade goods and their arrival in port - particularly Venice and London. Advance knowledge of a ship and it's contents allowed the original speculators the opportunity to make a healthy profit. These sheets were circulated, certainly around London and Venice and it wasn't long before people used them to advertise.
Friends of the printers (to cut a long story short) often sent lengthy letters to each other, reporting on topical events (it was before the internet) especially wars. These letters were often printed verbatim hence the origin of the word 'correspondent'.
These reports were incredibly popular and garnered readership. Edward Mallet took the highly original step of editing them to fit the space between the ads, and the Daily Courant was born in the 1700's. Often these letters were reports of reports of reports - a bit like the internet!
Gradually this developed into an art form and it wasn't long before reporters were despatched to write the letters themselves. War, conflict, crime and punishment and scandal soon became the daily diet of millions of readers. Then Hollywood was invented and so was the world of entertainment. Gradually readers started to prefer entertainment to 'news' - and who wouldn't? I present exhibit one 'The Sun' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun/ , which holds the world record for the highest readership of a single edition in the English language. This is closely followed by that masterpiece of twee entertainment published by DC Thomson 'The Sunday.Post' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Post/ including the immortal humour of 'Oor Wullie' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oor_Wullie/ Oor_Wullie and 'The Broons' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broons/
So it shouldn't really surprise anyone that people like to be entertained and since the entertainment industry is the economic dynamo of the developed nations, we shouldn't really be surprised by the sudden revelation that newspapers are in the 'infotainment' business.
None of this is at all new, Evelyn Waugh, in 1938, lampooned the whole industry to hilarious effect in 'Scoop' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_(novel)/. The simple tests for 'news' is; "What is the origin of this report?" and: "Who benefits from it?" and the three eternal questions any journalist would ask any famous figure if they caught them in the elevator are: "How bad is it? Will it get any worse? And what are you going to do about". A healthy attitude of scepticism is an essential attri..
We interrupt this broadcast to bring you ** breaking news** direct from Lynwood, California where Paris Hilton has just been released from prison having served four days of a 40 day sentence... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton/
Bias Disclaimer: I used to be a member of the NUJ and I used to teach this subject.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, sure as the earth still turns, another day brings this tired, useless question to the comment page once more.
"HOW IS THIS NEWS FOR NERDS??11~!?"
Shut your whiny fucking mouth.
Your implied aim, by hue and cry from your bitter and entitled complaining, is to turn this site into a monoculture of news that only YOU deem fit to be posted; for Slashdot's content to be wedged and crammed to fit the little box of YOUR mind's scope of idle fascinations.
IP and libel law are subjects that certain of us nerds find interesting. It's therefore news for us.
If, in the future, you feel a front-page story doesn't merit your personal seal of approval, walk on. One thing I guarantee no one on this site wants to read is your childish, gifthorse bitching.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Post it on the Internet and someone will steal it.
You just noticed this?
This is what you get when you have multiple 24-hour news channels and lots of news web sites itching to have something new. There's only so much real news, and not enough of it to even fill one TV channel with content. So they have to dig for crap. This is what you get.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
If the newspapers liftet both story and pictures from the blog, then that's a clear case of "for profit" copyright infringment.
Just because you find a story and pictures on a blog doesn't mean that they are public domain !
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Really. You have a primary source - the party hosts report of the event within hours of it occuring. Including photos that corroborate the story. That's as close the "the scene" as you'll get without time travel.
You cross check with people reported to be there, all OK so far. But these are young adults so you decide to check some more.
You interview older adult friends of the family. Neighbours? Still checks out.
You cross check with details of owners of the property, past reports of parties, look into the character of the individual online.
All that checks out.
Now you're aware they _could_ be lying so that's why you report with lines like "In the words of Jodie on her Bebo page after the event" and "One partygoer [...] said".
If there's been defamation/libel it's by the daughter. You'll probably find that the family is insured against such losses and will take their insurers to the cleaners, allegedly.
"Too many trees and planets in the way."
So, are you in the "Germany" on Neptune, with Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars obscuring the view?
In Soviet Russia, facts check you!
When I worked as a reporter, people tried to use "off the record" like a magic phrase to redact my writing. All. The. Time.
I had a police officer tell me something like, "Yes, the state has been very helpful with this program. Off the record, they haven't done a dang thing." Of course I didn't quote either of his duplicitous remarks. I'm not going to help him lie.
When is it off the record? When we both agree ahead of time. When will we agree to that? When there's no other way for me to get the information. After all, off-the-record info is useless to me, except that it may help me to get printable info somewhere else.
Now, for inconsequential stuff, like when the city manager says he's irritated with a loud-mouthed council member, I don't have to print that. I don't want to clam the guy up to where he's afraid to say anything in front of me next time. But I certainly wouldn't promise to take anything off the record that anybody wants, just because they said the magic words after the fact. If you're talking to a reporter, you should expect that it's on the record. Making the record is his/her job.
I'm just glad that war, famine and disease have all been conquered and we all now have time to worry about teen house parties.
Bebo? Wasn't he called Bibo?
"By US standards this case would likely be tossed out."
No. According to TFA:
"her lawyers say that the Hudsons employed private security guards to help supervise the private party on 3 May"
That is going to be very hard for the defense to get around. And in the unlikely event the security guards did not do their job, then the mother can go after them or whatever company they work for. It very strongly seems like the media printed a load of nonsense and should pay the price.
Can someone post the link to the blog in question?
If the truth is that that's what she said, couldn't they try and just report that? ("Girl claims ... blah blah on bebo")
"her lawyers say that the Hudsons employed private security guards to help supervise the private party on 3 May"
So? Even if that's true it doesn't prove the story wasn't essentially true. What part of "Assuming the mother is telling the truth" don't you understand? Furthermore, according to the mother there was something like 400 people at the party. How many security guards did you think they hired?
Additionally, just not being true is insufficient. Libel is very difficult to win in the US. If a newspaper asked got multiple quotes and based the story on the claims of the 'birthday girl' its almost automatically not libel by US standards.
But Mrs Hudson says the party was anything but a drunken riot. In her letter before action to the newspapers, her lawyers say that the Hudsons employed private security guards to help supervise the private party on 3 May. The letter adds that nothing was stolen; no alcohol was served or permitted; none of the guests took part in sexual acts ; the police were not called; and only minor damage was caused to one of the doors.
Yep ... that sounds like a really fun party. :)
This was the print media, not broadcast news. Also, I haven't heard of any pending copyright-infringement suits.
I'm not versed on the intricacies of British libel laws, but if this case were heard in the U.S., there are a few ways it could go. Most likely, the court would favor the newspapers:
If Amanda is a public figure or a "private individual involved in a matter of public concern," she is required to prove that there was absolutely no teenage drunken revelry at the villa that night, which may be difficult in light of published photos (some of which are still available online at sites such as elmundolibro.com).
On the other hand, the newspaper does not have to demonstrate that every word in the story was true. If it can show that there was "substantial truth" to the report, then Amanda loses.
In some states, if Amanda is an entirely private individual with no public dealings, the court would likely accept her claim at face value that no party took place. Then, Amanda could proceed with her case.
But, even if the court determines that the allegations are false, the newspapers have several strong lines of defense:
If they merely reported the fact that stories about a wild party were published on a social-networking website, and if the stories actually did appear on the site, then the newspapers may claim neutral reportage. This puts Amanda in a pickle.
In this case, she would have to prove that the newspapers published the story with negligence or malice.
"Negligence" means she would have to produce "clear and convincing evidence" that the reporter had definite knowledge--say, from a reliable witness or by photographic evidence--that the debauched hoedown did not actually take place. (Philosophy geeks might reflect that it is notoriously difficult to prove the nonexistence of something.) Without this evidence, Amanda loses.
To prove "malice," Amanda could resort to the mindreading trick and demonstrate that the reporter entertained serious doubts about the truth of the story when it was published. If Amanda can read the reporter's mind, and if the reporter has an incredibly incompetent attorney, Amanda wins! Otherwise, she loses.
If Amanda gets this far, then she must also show that the words used in the story are "capable of defamatory meaning." This standard varies from state to state.
In some states (e.g. Texas), a statement against an individual may be false, abusive and unpleasant without being "defamatory." Some states, like Illinois, consider a statement to be "defamatory" only if the plaintiff were falsely accused of an indictable criminal offense punishable by imprisonment.
England has lately become somewhat draconian in its disregard of individual privacy. I haven't heard, however, about any British attack on press freedom. Indeed, England can lay claim to one of the finest journalistic traditions ever--the BBC may be one of the last remaining bastions of solid investigative journalism in the world.
Given all this, I doubt Amanda has a case. However, her lawsuit--provoking so much anxiety among the Internet community--does make a good story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oor_Wullie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_(novel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton
For readers of a technical disposition, I inadvertently added a trailing slash while slapping in some wallpaper from wikipedia to make the page properly sexy for the new discerning web2 readership. And of course I didn't check anything, I'm an effing former photojournalist after all and we're pure scum.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Especially if its a fictional account...