Slashdot Mirror
Blogger Wins Libel Damages Over Columnist's Tweets (bbc.co.uk)
eionmac shares a report that details a legal battle in which a food blogger won thousands of dollars in libel damages "after a row over two tweets." BBC reports: Food blogger Jack Monroe has won 24,000 British pounds damages, plus legal costs, in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over two tweets. Ms Monroe sued the writer over two war memorial tweets she said caused "serious harm" to her reputation. Ms Hopkins posted tweets in May 2015 asking her if she had "scrawled on any memorials recently."
Ms Monroe said that meant she had either vandalized a war memorial or "condoned or approved" of it.
Mr Justice Warby also ordered Ms Hopkins -- a columnist for the Mail Online -- to pay an initial 107,000 British pounds towards the campaigner's legal costs within 28 days. He ruled that the tweets had caused "Ms Monroe real and substantial distress" and she was entitled to "fair and reasonable compensation."
Do the litigants have gender confusion, or does BeauHD?
Jack Monroe is Ms Monroe? She told herself what?
Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.
It's that nobody should be held accountable for what they say on Twitter, because nothing there applies to the real world.
Twitter has become the technological equivalent to writing on the wall of a public restroom.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Who the fsck is Ms Monroe?
Depends... from what I hear, a lot of the Fleet Street periodicals each have a massive cash stockpile that's earmarked for nothing but libel suits (they tend to attract 'em, as you might have guessed). Maybe she got a piece of that dosh from her employer? Not entirely sure, though - it would depend on whether or not she was posting in her capacity as a columnist or not. If not, then she's likely fscked.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
But someone who works for the Daily Mail got fucked and I approve of that.
Captcha: Cholera. How fitting.
The sad thing is that her shitty newspaper had probably come out better off from the whole affair. The Mail's main products are outrage and vitriol. Nothing like a good "snowflakes and their hurt feelings over a tweet" story that can be dragged out for years.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1) At least a dozen fat imbeciles will come along and spout off about how truth isn't a defence against libel in England.
2) Two of them will be that retarded red-light running granny-grabber A.K.Marc and that shit-thick polack Wijnowski, who know they're lying because I've corrected both of them on this - twice in the latter's case.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I weep for the future of civilization...
For those blissfully unaware of the existence of Katie Hopkins, she's a former UK Apprentice contestant and all-round pretty shitty human being, who now makes her living out of being "controversial," and is one of the most widely hated "celebrities" in the country. Five minutes with her would make spending the whole night with Piers Morgan seem pleasant by comparison.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Talk about ridiculously thin skinned. 107,000 British Pounds for what amounts to an insult... Talk about a broken system. In the free world with freedom of speech, we tweet back "You're an ass." then block the person and move on with our lives.
By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memorial."
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Not 100% sure either, but I think this is entirely on Hopkins. If she was acting in an "official capacity" and using a Daily Mail specific account then the lawsuit would have probably been brought against the paper based on past incidences of a similar nature in the UK, including one for a column of Hopkins' that was a £150k loss for the Daily Mail. Making an employer liable for what an employee does on their own personal account - even if apparently in an "offfical capacity" - seems like a slippery slope no employer - and especially not the Daily Mail with its outspoken and hate-filled staff - is going to want to even walk up to, let alone step foot on.
It's probably no surprise that the Daily Mail doesn't seem in any rush to report on this story though; a shame, because the lies and spin they'll no doubt put on this is likely to be some of their "best" work.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.
Most of the country is glad she didn't.
That's not libel, that's censorship.
The trick is that, however much of an ass she may be, the "defamer" in this case just tweeted at the wrong handle on accident. And with some language that one would really have to stretch to take to be an explicit assertion of vandalism.
And that's libelous? And worth 24k quid? God help us.
What is important is that it stinks when the courts accord themselves a major lottery win for penalising some poor bugger who made a silly mistake. As for the woman (or whatever, according to some of the comments) who couldn't simply accept an apology, I can only hope that she experiences the same viciousness in her life that she's shown toward this unfortunate. Someone who is less vulnerable than her present victim. Meanwhile I hope the bloody money chokes her.
Attacking and trying to discredit the media inconvenient to you isn't something new.
> The judge ruled that the tweet "meant that Ms Monroe condoned and approved of scrawling on war memorials, vandalising monuments commemorating those who fought for her freedom".
No it doesn't. It means Hopkins said that but it was found not to be true. Hopkins walks away from this looking like a fool. Monroe has been vindicated but she does not need to be paid all that money for damage to her reputation because her reputation has not been damaged.
This would not happen in America because of 1st Amendment protection: There has been a discussion by two public figures and the discussion has been resolved.
Not only does Britain hate free speech, but even criticizing this verdict could see you sued by the judge and fined or jail for contempt of court.
Hopkins revels in personal attacks and makes up her facts to fit her views. There was another libel case recently when she - and her employers - had to shell out far more than in this case.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
I wish they'd libel me, too.
the daily mail is not media, its shit infected toilet paper
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I rally hate it what assholes speak for "half the country" fuck you!
>Ms Monroe comes from a family with military connections - her father was in the British Army for seven years, while one of her brothers is a flying officer in the RAF. ...which paints Jack Monroe's successful libel charge on a whole different light.
Ha ha ha, that would have made her spit babies bones (meaning she'd have had to make a nice baby fricassee to swallow the bones ; she'd have had the recipe and materials to hand).
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"