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."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.