Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

First Brit Prosecuted Over Twitter Libel

Posted by samzenpus on from the tweet-nice dept.

Tasha26 writes "A former town Mayor, Colin Elsbury, made legal history by being the first Brit to pay damages for libel on Twitter. His tweet on polling day said 'It's not in our nature to deride our opponents however Eddie Talbot had to be removed by the Police from a polling station' [and was held to amount] to pure election slur. The Twitter libel was settled at Cardiff High Court with total bill hitting £53,000 (£3,000 compensation + £50,000 legal fees). The fine works out at more than £2,400 per word. After Courtney Love's recent £260k settlement in a Twibel case, this case reaffirms that anything posted in the public domain is subject to libel laws."

19 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Twibel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Twibel? Seriously, you're coining a portmanteau out of one shared letter (i)? Fuck off.

    1. Re:Twibel? by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      Didn't Star Trek do a couple episodes about the Twibel problem?

    2. Re:Twibel? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2



      SAY 'TWIBEL' AGAIN!
      I DARE YOU!
      I DOUBLE DARE YOU!
      SAY 'TWIBEL' ONE MORE GODDAMN TIME!

      stupid lameness filter, of course I'm yelling! that's the whole point!

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re: twibel? by brusk · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm afraid your proposal won't gain any twaction.

      --
      .sig withheld by request
    4. Re:Twibel? by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Didn't Star Trek do a couple episodes about the Twibel problem?

      Yes. The Twouble With Twibels.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
  2. For all that's wrong with Britain's libel.... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For all that's wrong with Britain's libel system, this actually sounds like it'd pass muster in America as well, and a good thing for it, too.

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel.... by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, I'm not seeing the problem here. I mean, what was the alternative?

      "You lied about someone in an attempt to smear their reputation? Yep, that's libel all right.
      Oh, but you did it on Twitter? Ah, that's totally different! No harm done then!"

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel.... by julesh · · Score: 2

      The way the article is written implies someone with the same name was removed by the police; in the USA, I am not sure it would be Libel. It might be it might not.

      Interestingly, this was actually less likely to be considered libel in the UK than in the USA. The UK defamation law recognises a defense against libel, "unintentional defamation", which is allowed in cases of genuine mistake about the information disclosed (mistaken identity is the most commonly cited situation it is used in). This defence doesn't have a direct US counterpart. However, this defence requires the defendant to show that he took reasonable steps to avoid mistakes, which is probably where this case fell down (I guess without having read it).

      See, e.g. Sandford, Libel and Privacy, vol 2 page 10 onwards. IANAL, but I know how to do a faiurly convincing impersonation of one.

    3. Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel.... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Informative

      For all that's wrong with Britain's libel system, this actually sounds like it'd pass muster in America as well, and a good thing for it, too.

      With regards to a private citizen, it might pass muster. With regards to a candidate for electoral office and other public officials, however, the 1A requires a much higher standard. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan for more details.

      Broadly speaking, the standard for talking about a public figure is not merely malice but actual malice which means either actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In practice, that's a nearly impossible burden for a libel plaintiff.

      The logic that a different standard applies to public officials and candidates for office is also pretty obvious -- they have voluntarily decided to submit themselves for public judgment and they ought to understand that they are open to criticism in that regard. The KS Supreme Court wrote it best

      It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great. The public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.

    4. Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel.... by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      So if your local newspaper (or popular website like say yahoo news) printed a giant first page story saying " is a pedophile" you'd be perfectly fine with that?

    5. Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel.... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      My feelings aren't important. The freedom to speak outweighs all of this bullshit. You simply refuse to understand what the hell I'm saying.

      It's not just about hurt feelings. It's about people's reputations and careers.

      If you call me a paedophile, the alternative to being able to sue you for slander/libel is for me to come round your house with a couple of friends and some baseball bats. I know which way I prefer to run a civilised society.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  3. What is wrong with this picture? by shoes58 · · Score: 2

    3K actual compensation for the libel, 50K to the bottom feeding lawyers... And we think we have it bad here in America...

    1. Re:What is wrong with this picture? by N1AK · · Score: 3, Informative

      3K actual compensation for the libel, 50K to the bottom feeding lawyers..

      In the UK it is normal to have to pay the fees for the other party, especially in a case like this. This means that it's quite likely that if he had accepted he was guilty, instead of fighting a lengthy legal battle to try and weasel out of it, he would be paying very little in lawyer's fees.

    2. Re:What is wrong with this picture? by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 2

      http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_money_does_a_lawyer_earn

    3. Re:What is wrong with this picture? by jmcvetta · · Score: 2

      I would argue that any legal system where access to the law must be purchased is inherently broken.

  4. The math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's a fine attempt to make a reasonable prosecution sound unreasonable:
    "The fine works out at more than £2,400 per word."

    Yes, but those words were put together in such an order that the statement was libellous. So that's £53,000 for each instance of libel/defamation. So what's the problem? You can't slander people (particularly your political opponents) and hope to get off scot-free

  5. Re:What he tweeted... by hedwards · · Score: 2

    You know, he's never denied being a pedophile, rapist murderer. I'll leave that up to the reader to consider.

  6. Re:Sticks and stones ... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 2

    And so I publicly state that you, Bitztream, are a child molester, the hour before your interview as a school teacher...........

    You still feel the same way?

    Hours before an election someone lies about an opponent hoping some won't vote for the opponent. That is clearly libel.

  7. Erm... small issue by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fine was £3,000. About £130/word.

    The legal fees are nothing to do with the fine - Britain has a "loser pays" legal system so being ordered to pay legal fees isn't considered part of the fine.

    On the plus side, this means there's a rather strong deterrent against frivolous lawsuits - "no win, no fee" (assuming your solicitor takes the case on that basis) only applies to your legal team, not the other sides. On the minus side, it means that a big company can add a paragraph to their legal threatograms saying "Please note that if you lose in court, you'll have to pay our fees. We're up to £1,500 already and we haven't even started yet."