Read on Twitter
1/
It’s been a controversial few days in Book Land, where some have commented on stories that are ‘out there’ only to find themselves receiving aggressively worded demands for apologies/retractions. These things can be scary, so I thought - as a lawyer - I might offer some help.
It’s been a controversial few days in Book Land, where some have commented on stories that are ‘out there’ only to find themselves receiving aggressively worded demands for apologies/retractions. These things can be scary, so I thought - as a lawyer - I might offer some help.
2/
Because just receiving an email that demands an apology or a retraction - no matter how carefully worded & how ‘legal’ it may sound - does not automatically make the sender of that email ‘right’. There’s a whole lot more to it than ‘you said X, apologise or I’ll sue’.
Because just receiving an email that demands an apology or a retraction - no matter how carefully worded & how ‘legal’ it may sound - does not automatically make the sender of that email ‘right’. There’s a whole lot more to it than ‘you said X, apologise or I’ll sue’.
3/
We all know about Katie Hopkins v Jack Monroe. We know it ruined Hopkins financially, after she tweeted libellous content against Monroe.
And it’s easy for those who don’t like an opinion to rely on the awareness of that outcome, to frighten those who express THEIR opinion.
We all know about Katie Hopkins v Jack Monroe. We know it ruined Hopkins financially, after she tweeted libellous content against Monroe.
And it’s easy for those who don’t like an opinion to rely on the awareness of that outcome, to frighten those who express THEIR opinion.
4/
Thing is, though, Monroe was able to do this because what Hopkins wrote was LIBELLOUS. Not simply because she wrote something that Monroe did not like or an opinion that offended her.
So, for all those who have an opinion that others might not like, these are the rules:
Thing is, though, Monroe was able to do this because what Hopkins wrote was LIBELLOUS. Not simply because she wrote something that Monroe did not like or an opinion that offended her.
So, for all those who have an opinion that others might not like, these are the rules:
5/
First and foremost, it is NOT libel if what you are tweeting is the truth.
So let’s say someone admits something on a podcast. And they go into a lot of detail, much of which they may now regret as it doesn’t gel with their alt-history rewriting of what they did and why.
First and foremost, it is NOT libel if what you are tweeting is the truth.
So let’s say someone admits something on a podcast. And they go into a lot of detail, much of which they may now regret as it doesn’t gel with their alt-history rewriting of what they did and why.
6/
If you report that and you get it right - if what you say is an accurate reflection of what happened - then there can be NO libel.
The starting point of an libel action is that the statement is false. If it isn’t - if it’s in fact true; if, for example, the person it...
If you report that and you get it right - if what you say is an accurate reflection of what happened - then there can be NO libel.
The starting point of an libel action is that the statement is false. If it isn’t - if it’s in fact true; if, for example, the person it...
7/
...concerns SAID IT THEMSELVES, IN A PUBLISHED ARTICLE/SHOW/INTERVIEW/PODCAST ON WHICH THEY WERE A GUEST FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUBLICISING A WORK (sorry for shouting; it’s just THAT absurd!!!) then you cannot have libelled them and any demand for an apology or a retraction...
...concerns SAID IT THEMSELVES, IN A PUBLISHED ARTICLE/SHOW/INTERVIEW/PODCAST ON WHICH THEY WERE A GUEST FOR THE PURPOSES OF PUBLICISING A WORK (sorry for shouting; it’s just THAT absurd!!!) then you cannot have libelled them and any demand for an apology or a retraction...
8/
...should earn a short, sharp response (if you bother to respond at all).
So that’s the starting point. If it’s true and you report it fairly, then you have done nothing wrong.
But of course, sometimes these things spiral. Discussions go beyond mere repetition of the...
...should earn a short, sharp response (if you bother to respond at all).
So that’s the starting point. If it’s true and you report it fairly, then you have done nothing wrong.
But of course, sometimes these things spiral. Discussions go beyond mere repetition of the...
9/
...original statement. There can even be - GASP - criticism of actions. And criticism can offend. So what happens if your discussion, your opinion, offends the person around whom that discussion is focused?
Well, first & foremost - and believe it or not in 2020 - merely...
...original statement. There can even be - GASP - criticism of actions. And criticism can offend. So what happens if your discussion, your opinion, offends the person around whom that discussion is focused?
Well, first & foremost - and believe it or not in 2020 - merely...
10/
...causing offence is neither a crime nor an actionable tort. So anyone demanding an apology or retraction merely because they don’t like what you’ve said / your opinion? Short, sharp response (if any).
But what if they approach you in such a way as to imply that...
...causing offence is neither a crime nor an actionable tort. So anyone demanding an apology or retraction merely because they don’t like what you’ve said / your opinion? Short, sharp response (if any).
But what if they approach you in such a way as to imply that...
11/
...your opinion is libellous? If they come at you with aggressive, quasi-legal language? Well then, again, you need to know the law. Because generally in these circumstances it is again on your side.
What I am talking about here is the defence of honest comment.
...your opinion is libellous? If they come at you with aggressive, quasi-legal language? Well then, again, you need to know the law. Because generally in these circumstances it is again on your side.
What I am talking about here is the defence of honest comment.
12/
Taken as briefly as possible, the defence of honest comment reflects the protection that English Law provides to an honest person who expressed an opinion ‘no matter how prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate’ that view may be, provided it is an opinion on a matter of...
Taken as briefly as possible, the defence of honest comment reflects the protection that English Law provides to an honest person who expressed an opinion ‘no matter how prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate’ that view may be, provided it is an opinion on a matter of...
13/
...public interest. It must of course be based on fact (you can’t just make something up and then have an opinion on it as if it is true) and it must be clearly an opinion rather than a further statement of fact (e.g. X did this thing, I think that is dishonest and...
...public interest. It must of course be based on fact (you can’t just make something up and then have an opinion on it as if it is true) and it must be clearly an opinion rather than a further statement of fact (e.g. X did this thing, I think that is dishonest and...
14/
...disgraceful/shameful and I think that because....).
As for a matter of public interest, well, I think anyone who goes onto a podcast to promote an item they are selling & regales the controversial manner in which they have achieved a significant milestone in those...
...disgraceful/shameful and I think that because....).
As for a matter of public interest, well, I think anyone who goes onto a podcast to promote an item they are selling & regales the controversial manner in which they have achieved a significant milestone in those...
15/
...sales has made it of public interest. In fact, we could probably stop at ‘anyone who goes onto a podcast’!!
So, I hope this clears up the law on this. If you have clearly expressed an honest opinion - even one wholly derogatory - based on something someone freely...
...sales has made it of public interest. In fact, we could probably stop at ‘anyone who goes onto a podcast’!!
So, I hope this clears up the law on this. If you have clearly expressed an honest opinion - even one wholly derogatory - based on something someone freely...
...admitted to having in fact done, and then that someone (or A.N.Other) comes demanding a retraction or an apology, feel free to take the high road pioneered by the peerless Private Eye Magazine in the (not actually real) case of Arkell v Pressdram.
In other words: F*** Off.
In other words: F*** Off.
