ChatterBank3 mins ago
Sally Berkow
Found guilty.
That's all i have at the moment........
That's all i have at the moment........
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sqad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// He decided that her tweet "provided the last piece in the jigsaw" and allowed readers to wrongly link McAlpine with the allegation of child sexual abuse. "It is an allegation of guilt. I see no room on these facts for any less serious meaning," Tugendhat added. //
I wouldn't agree it's an allegation of guilt. As jtp says, It's more an allegation that he was the person being gossiped about on Twitter.
I wouldn't agree it's an allegation of guilt. As jtp says, It's more an allegation that he was the person being gossiped about on Twitter.
not as such, no. but the argument runs thus:-
Her inclusion of the phrase *innocent face* told readers that she was being "insincere and ironical", not asking a straightforward question as she had argued. It was therefore reasonable to infer that she meant Lord McAlpine was "trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser"
The tweet was therefore, by implication, a repetition of the accusations of sexual abuse broadcast on Newsnight.
QED.
Her inclusion of the phrase *innocent face* told readers that she was being "insincere and ironical", not asking a straightforward question as she had argued. It was therefore reasonable to infer that she meant Lord McAlpine was "trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser"
The tweet was therefore, by implication, a repetition of the accusations of sexual abuse broadcast on Newsnight.
QED.
Which kind of goes back to my first point
Is this a departure?
Has anybody before been prosecuted for libel When they had not repeated the Libel but simply referred to it and expressed or implied an opinion?
It would be a bit someone on here saying ' x is a paedophile' and my posting on another thread have you seen y's post - 'I think he's right'
I suspect in the past the law would have concentrated on the original offender - but in this case there was a certain safety in numbers and rather than attempt to find and prosecute the original offender a high profile figure was selected as an example
Is this a departure?
Has anybody before been prosecuted for libel When they had not repeated the Libel but simply referred to it and expressed or implied an opinion?
It would be a bit someone on here saying ' x is a paedophile' and my posting on another thread have you seen y's post - 'I think he's right'
I suspect in the past the law would have concentrated on the original offender - but in this case there was a certain safety in numbers and rather than attempt to find and prosecute the original offender a high profile figure was selected as an example
where the repetition rule has previously been invoked, it's usually the press that's been the target - the most notable recent case being the Blairs' former nanny, her book, their injunction and her subsequent action agains Associated Press. I can't find an example of an individual being so targeted (unless of couse someone knows different), so this case may well set a sort of precedent - or a warning example to tweeters who follow celebrities.
Yes - I too think it's a precident - certainly I'd have agreed if it had been breaking an injunction - she'd definately have been bang to rights!
I do think they key thing here was malicious intent I suspect that may have played quite a part in the consideration perhaps that may feature in future legislation
I do think they key thing here was malicious intent I suspect that may have played quite a part in the consideration perhaps that may feature in future legislation
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.