Twitter again...Tweety bird go bye bye..

Surfer said:
Ive posted on a public forum that i think Giggs is a ******. So i should be sued shouldnt i.

You cant criminalize someone for having an opinion.

Now i know what you're going to say here but i see a difference between someone saying Giggs is a ****** on a forum and someone saying it in a newspaper column. (or online newspaper column) Entirely different contexts.

Apparently a lot of people just want all opinions censored *shrug*
Click to expand...
You're missing the point of defamation legislation.

You are entitled to hold and express your opinion about the character of an individual. However, if you make a positive claim about a person — if you claim, for example, that Giggs is a child molester — implying it as fact, and that accusation is both false and damaging to that person's character, then that is prohibited, and Giggs would be entitled to seek recompense from you for the harm caused.

Obviously, as you correctly identify, the potential damage caused to a person's reputation is much more significant when it is, say, a newspaper making these accusations, rather than a sole individual.

If this twitter user has not made any defamatory statements (i.e. his allegations about South Tyneside Council are correct) then he has absolutely nothing to worry about; he will be vindicated in court, and the Council thoroughly embarrassed.
 
There does seem to be some sort of desire to treat the internet differently from other forms of communication. Why should you be able to get away with doing something on the net when you cannot get away with it in print or in person?
 
RDM said:
There does seem to be some sort of desire to treat the internet differently from other forms of communication. Why should you be able to get away with doing something on the net when you cannot get away with it in print or in person?
Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
I have a huge issue with a UK council spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to act in the interests of a single PRIVATE individual.
 
badcompany said:
Worrying that they handed his details over to be honest.
Click to expand...

Why? There was a court order commanding them to give up the info. If you want to question anything, ask why a US state court gave such an order when asked by a UK authority. Even then, it's hardly surprising. The Internet has made the world a smaller, closer, place and legal jurisdictions can't be expected to function in the same way as they have historically done.
 
UncleRuckus said:
It's in reference to the state silencing people.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the internet should be exempt from the laws regarding libel? Should anyone be able to say what they like about anyone else regardless of how damaging or incorrect it is? Bearing in mind that this court order is about handing over user information not stopping the user's access. Surely if someone is spreading what you consider lies about you then you have the right to know who that is?
 
RDM said:
Do you think that the internet should be exempt from the laws regarding libel? Should anyone be able to say what they like about anyone else regardless of how damaging or incorrect it is? Bearing in mind that this court order is about handing over user information not stopping the user's access. Surely if someone is spreading what you consider lies about you then you have the right to know who that is?
Click to expand...
If it's damaging and true people should be able to voice it.Especially when it comes to members of government and corruption.
 
vonhelmet said:
Well, not really. The notion of the thought police is that a person couldn't even think an unaccepted thought, not that they couldn't voice a libellous/slanderous thought for the world to see.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely, I'm coming from the point of view that the papers changed and anything which big brother did not like went down the memory hole.
 
Last edited:
UncleRuckus said:
If it's damaging and true people should be able to voice it.Especially when it comes to members of government and corruption.
Click to expand...

If it is true then it will be very difficult to bring a libel case against someone, especially if they can prove it is true. You didn't however answer my question, what makes the internet different? Why should different rules apply to it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom