A reminder that you are responsible for what you post on NSC and tweet.

[El Presidente]

There's been a bit of emotive stuff recently, and in the main NSC is an incredibly good self policing board. Having seen what has happened to the fragrant Katie Hopkins today, who has had to pay damages of £24,000 for two tweets, and legal costs that are likely to be very eye watering, can I remind you splendid ladies and gentlemen to keep it within respectable boundaries.

[Tweet]840203940482437121[/Tweet]

 

[Moshe Gariani]

There's been a bit of emotive stuff recently, and in the main NSC is an incredibly good self policing board. Having seen what has happened to the fragrant Katie Hopkins today, who has had to pay damages of £24,000 for two tweets, and legal costs that are likely to be very eye watering, can I remind you splendid ladies and gentlemen to keep it within respectable boundaries.

[Tweet]840203940482437121[/Tweet]

This is good advice. Can you help further with some (hypothetical) examples relevant to NSC that are "emotive" and would also approach the line that Katie Hopkins crossed...?

"Defamatory" is the key, isn't it? How does that get defined and used in theory and in practice?

 

[Moshe Gariani]

What Constitutes Defamation Online?

Defamation is generally defined as a false, published statement that is injurious to the plaintiff's reputation. An online posting, even on an obscure website, will likely be seen by a few people, thus satisfying the publication requirement.

Statements of Fact

A plaintiff cannot succeed in his or her online defamation claim if the defendant's defamatory statement was true. For example, if a customer posts a review of your business on Yelp, claiming that there was a rat infestation, you may sue them for defamation. You would then have to prove that there was no rat infestation, and thus, the defendant's statement was false.

Opinions

Following that, the defendant may try to argue that the claimed rat infestation was an opinion. Opinions are privileged under the law. As a result, plaintiffs cannot bring a defamation claim for an opinion. Importantly, however, an opinion that may be viewed as a statement of fact by a reasonable person will be deemed a statement of fact. The courts may interpret, "I think that [restaurant] has a rat infestation problem," as a statement of fact.

Modifications

Modified photos that scandalize persons or businesses are clear defamation violation, and are quite popular on social media. It is common for modified photos or video to go 'viral'. The less obvious and absurd the modification, the more likely it is that a court will find it defamatory.

As a sharer or creator of content, always make sure that any information about a person or entity is truthful and would not be considered injurious to their reputation.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] gave a good example of this yesterday. It's a timely warning.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] gave a good example of this yesterday. It's a timely warning.

Link?

 

[TheJasperCo]

I love Palace fans, really I do. Great bunch of supporters and I look forward to us playing them next season. Always up for banter and as for that drum and goal music...well, we should take a leaf out of their book.


I think I got away with it :wink, wink:

 

[El Presidente]

This is good advice. Can you help further with some (hypothetical) examples relevant to NSC that are "emotive" and would also approach the line that Katie Hopkins crossed...?

"Defamatory" is the key, isn't it? How does that get defined and used in theory and in practice?

Fair comment

Attached is a link to the ruling of the case by the judge. It is detailed (28 pages long, about the same length as a Paul Barber email).

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/monroe-v-hopkins-2017-ewhc-433-qb-20170310.pdf

We don't want anyone on here to get in trouble with what they post. Sometimes it's better to delete and seeth, than post and repent.

 

[amexer]

God help those that have disclosed on here somebody has used there ticket

 

[Don Tmatter]

What did she tweet and to whom?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39234079

 

[Gazwag]

Modified photos that scandalize persons or businesses are clear defamation violation, and are quite popular on social media. It is common for modified photos or video to go 'viral'. The less obvious and absurd the modification, the more likely it is that a court will find it defamatory.

.

Quickly goes and deletes Hiney Art image depicting Hiney pointing at Jesus on the cross in case the second coming does happen soon

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Link?

It was to do with our new signing.

 

[Norman Potting]

An interesting mix of useful and considered information on an important topic, plus a couple of LOL

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

In my defence, me Omsung Phine keypad's gone wrong. Please disregard all previous posts stating 'Barber OUT!' Should of course read 'Barber UTA!'

 

[BBassic]

I removed myself from Twitter a few weeks ago because of my complete inability to censor myself when I've had a drink.

 

[Moshe Gariani]

In my defence, me Omsung Phine keypad's gone wrong. Please disregard all previous posts stating 'Barber OUT!' Should of course read 'Barber UTA!'

LOL. Can I also make it clear that it is only my opinion that Paul Barber may possibly have slightly misjudged the presentation of some recent announcements that, also only in my opinion, may have been considered to possibly negatively affect longstanding Albion fans in favour of meeting the interests of more recently arrived customers.

 

[TheJasperCo]

In my defence, me Omsung Phine keypad's gone wrong. Please disregard all previous posts stating 'Barber OUT!' Should of course read 'Barber UTA!'

Would have been easier to blame those pesky Russian hacking *******s.


Sorry, sorry, I mean those loveable scamps from Moscow.

 

[glasfryn]

good thing JC and dave don't read NSC then or we would all be in trouble

 

[El Presidente]

I removed myself from Twitter a few weeks ago because of my complete inability to censor myself when I've had a drink.

Also known as the 'waking up next to a munter' defence. Sadly this is likely to succeed when you are accused the next time down the pub with your mates of " ****ing that HOUND with the eyes that point in two directions and pubes that resemble Terry Waites allotment"...M'Lord.

You will be found GUILTY.

 

[Buzzer]

AS much as Katie Hopkins was due something like this given her approach to Twitter, Jack Monroe didn't exactly arrive at the High Court like some naive Twitter innocent. She was guilty herself of some pretty disgusting Tweets that were every bit as defamatory and hurtful as Hopkins and was extremely lucky that her target never sued her.