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?
This comment is just lazy... the name of the food blog is "A Girl Called Jack".
I suspect that Mr. Trump has approximately nothing to do with British civil courts, let alone this particular lawsuit.
Seriously dude, let it go. Not everything in the news is orange-tinted...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
They would not have a case since in the US a person would have to reasonably believe it is true to meet the standard. IOW it can't be obvious bat shit crazy ramblings like Trump's tweets.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
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!
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."
The dictionary is the wrong book. Judges are going to go by the legal statutes which define what libel is. They only need to fall back on dictionaries if the statutes don't themselves define a term and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the laws of England spend pages and pages defining what libel is. I wouldn't blame the judge in this case either; the politicians wrote the laws.
That's not libel, that's censorship.
In the free world with freedom of speech
You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.
It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel
Funny. Experts in the legal system seem to disagree with you. Which is good because you clearly don't understand how speech can be interpreted in different ways. If you think you need to explain things in perfect legalese in order to defame someone then man have you got a narrow view of how the legal world works. Careful that this doesn't bite you.
I wish they'd libel me, too.
You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.
Zero, huh? Are you really that stupid or myopic? Libel is a limit on free speech. Its damages are enforced by the government. If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said you might feel differently. But as long as the people you disagree with are getting sued and losing, you defend it.
Its damages are enforced by the government.
Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.
If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said
See you do know what free speech is, but you seem to not realise why it has nothing to do with this case. Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.
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)
No idea if the woman in the picture is one or the other.
The one with goat legs, horns and an inverted pentagram inscribed on her forehead is the one who works for the Daily Mail (Hopkins).
SJW n. One who posts facts.