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."
Thankfully you said 'Newspaper' editors, if we held the editors around here to that standard there would be no stories!
Seriously, this is stupid; her daughter published the 'facts' as it were. She may have a claim, but her daughter should be enjoined from having a claim.
If I tell you I'm a drunk, and you publish it I can't later say that it wasn't true and sue you for publishing it.
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
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.
"Isn't that what newspaper reporters and editors are for?"
Yes, but what if an Editor has a really good story about a "party gone wild" which he knows will sell lots of papers but then at the last minute discovers his sources are false. Do you really expect him to cause his newspaper to loose sales?
Remember his duty is to the newspaper company's shareholders after all, not the customers.
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
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
Because the person who published and the person complaining are the same person?
The person who *originally* published is the daughter of the person complaining.
The people who *currently* are publishing, that is, the tabloids, are being sued (rightfully, in my mind) for essentially spreading unsubstantiated rumor.
Look at it this way: If you're a reporter, and you tell your editor that "I've heard from a friend of a friend that this Hudson kid had a crazy party, can I do a story on it?" he'd say no. How should this be any different?
Do you find that when you say that face to face, people nod as if they agree with you, then their eyes sort of glaze over, then they start glancing at their watch and ... umm, gotta go - dental appointment!
shit, that's the funniest thing i've read in days. I have a friend who whenever the davinci code is mentioned has to interject an earnest, "its totally all true!!!1!" The nod -> eyeglaze routine is pretty well established now. Some people are just so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between critical evaluation of information and counter-establishment = true.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Not quite so simple. First the daughter is only 16. Second I don't know how this particular site works, but it may be only accessible to members. No matter how easy is is to join, that would be different from "publishing" to all and sundry. It's at least nominally a private communication.
Regardless of legality, it was a sleazy thing to do and I have no sympathy for the newspapers. They should have sent reporters to the actual scene and confirmed the story. Slashdot publishes all kinds of unsourced rumours and hoaxes someone blogs about. That's why they have no credibility. When you pay for news you expect a bit more.
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?
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?
IANAL and all the other caveats about not knowing everything...
I think that solicitors that encourage action when that is not good professional advice, should be ordered by the courts to pay all costs and there should be no cost to the person taking action. The mother naturally wants to take action, I accept that she is asking to take action... but the solicitor is the professional and should have an obligation to make it really clear that there is no case when there is no case. If the courts made a few solicitors pay when it was beyond doubt that they had encouraged action, then it would make the rest think twice before recommending action. Such a ruling would also cut down on frivolous claims by greedy companies...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
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
I was born next door to your Russian friend. Hence why I can see it clearer. I got to see alot of that until the mighty "fall of the wall" and the so called "revolutions" over there. Ask your Russian friend if the same second tier Party people are now in charge in his homeland too. I'm curious. Where I lived, the same guys who ran Operations are now "Prime Minister". The guy who ran Propaganda (they called it Education like they do in the West) now runs the military... etc. The guys coming up for 'election' each year are the same assholes who used to interrogate people if they were living "beyond their means" (i.e. if they had businesses on the side or other "capitalistic" or "unapproved" methods of living.)
I find it amusing, I wonder if your friend does also.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
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.