Some of this is simply light-hearted ribbing and some frankly
abusive.
I have been called all manner of things on line and do not
mind being insulted. People are perfectly entitled to express their heartfelt
opinions.
However, an internet pseudonym grants a cloak of anonymity
which removes some tweeters’ inhibitions to such an extent that they say things
they would never contemplate saying in open court.
There are of course limits to free speech, lines which even
in a free society should not be crossed.
Libel and threats for example are illegal and a total of 653 people faced criminal charges
in England and Wales last year in connection with comments on Twitter or Facebook.
These divided into
offences committed on the two sites, such as posting abusive messages, and
those which had been provoked by messages, including violent attacks.
I personally draw
the line at being misrepresented.
Recently, for the
first time, I asked a Dr David Jones ( @welsh_gas_doc ) to retract a potentially damaging false
statement he made about me. He eventually did, but only after it had
been retweeted by 52 people to tens of thousands of twitter users.
I have since learnt
that his tweets previously came to the attention of the national media (see
here and here)
after a medical colleague posted a complaint.
Whether he has
learnt his lesson remains to be seen but a tweet he sent me a couple of days
ago about Cardinal O’Brien (see below) raises serious questions. Dr Jones seems not to be aware of the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and may
well have crossed a legal line here.
‘Idiot Immolater’ (I am assuming she is female), who goes
under the twitter name @msgrumpy, describes
herself as an atheist who is opinionated, passionate and loves an argument.
Amongst other things she dislikes organised religion and evangelicals.
Ms Grumpy is a prolific ‘tweeter’ who has posted over 86,000
times and spends much of her time attacking Christians.
Last night she sent me a series of tweets, some merely
insulting but several making quite extraordinary and frankly risible personal allegations.
First she accused me driving a Mercedes financed by my
employer.
Then she claimed I was being financed by my church to stay
in five star hotels.
She followed this up by saying that I was a closet
homosexual who was paid to support my ‘penchant for the lady boys’.
Others then joined in.
It is Ms Grumpy's comments that have led me to post this
blog to draw attention to the legal boundaries, especially with respect to
libel.
According to a recent
ComRes poll 46% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 17% of over-65s are unaware they can
be sued for defamation if they tweet an unsubstantiated rumour about someone.
The BBC has recently published a useful article titled ‘Twitter users: A guide to the law’ which outlines the categories of law on which social media users
in England and Wales are coming unstuck.
Essentially there are seven: libel, reporting sex offences,
breaking a court order, other contempt of court, threats, offensive comments
and injunctions/superinjunctions.
The libel law has
been recently highlighted by the case of Lord
McAlpine and Commons speaker’s wife Sally Bercow.
In November,
Conservative peer Lord McAlpine announced his intention to seek libel damages
from Twitter users over incorrect and defamatory insinuations linking him to
child sex abuse.
The law concerning
Twitter is clear - if you make a defamatory allegation about someone you can be
sued for libel. It is the same as publishing a false and damaging report in a
newspaper.
But until the
McAlpine case, no one had seriously attempted to exercise that right in the UK.
Lord McAlpine has
dropped threatened legal action against Twitter users with fewer than 500
followers and instructed his lawyers to concentrate their efforts on seeking
£50,000 in damages from Mrs Bercow, the wife of Commons speaker Bercow, in what
is expected to be the first High Court Twitter libel trial.
At the height of the
Twitter frenzy, Mrs Bercow tweeted to her 56,000 followers: ‘Why is Lord McAlpine
trending? *innocent face*’
A tweet is potentially
libellous in England and Wales if it damages someone's reputation ‘in the
estimation of right thinking members of society’. It can do this by exposing
them to ‘hatred, ridicule or contempt’. It is a civil offence so you won't be
jailed but you could end up with a large damages bill. The rules also apply to
re-tweets.
The best defence is
if you can prove the contents of the tweet are true.
The only way to be
completely safe is to avoid tweeting gossip unless you know for a fact that it
is true.
Under the Defamation
Bill, due to become law later this year, litigants in England and Wales will
have to show that the words they are complaining about caused ‘substantial
harm’ rather than simply ‘harm’ to their reputations.
Website operators
may also be forced to remove potentially libellous comments by anonymous
‘trolls’ or hand over their names and addresses to the authorities. Scotland is
expected to adopt its own version of the changes.
Twitter is a useful
forum which is a great information source and also allows people who might not
otherwise meet to exchange views on important issues.
But there are boundaries
in free speech that should not be crossed.
