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
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
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
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
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