First Brit Prosecuted Over Twitter Libel

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."

Comments

Re:Twibel?

[hedwards]

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

For all that's wrong with Britain's libel....

[FooAtWFU]

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.

Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel....

[pushing-robot]

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!"

Re:For all that's wrong with Britain's libel....

[Wrath0fb0b]

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.

The math

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What is wrong with this picture?

[N1AK]

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.

Erm... small issue

[jimicus]

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."

Re: twibel?

[brusk]

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