Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Twitter Communications The Almighty Buck The Internet Your Rights Online

Blogger Wins Libel Damages Over Columnist's Tweets (bbc.co.uk) 115

Posted by BeauHD from the think-before-you-speak dept.
eionmac shares a report that details a legal battle in which a food blogger won thousands of dollars in libel damages "after a row over two tweets." BBC reports: Food blogger Jack Monroe has won 24,000 British pounds damages, plus legal costs, in a libel action against columnist Katie Hopkins after a row over two tweets. Ms Monroe sued the writer over two war memorial tweets she said caused "serious harm" to her reputation. Ms Hopkins posted tweets in May 2015 asking her if she had "scrawled on any memorials recently." Ms Monroe said that meant she had either vandalized a war memorial or "condoned or approved" of it. Mr Justice Warby also ordered Ms Hopkins -- a columnist for the Mail Online -- to pay an initial 107,000 British pounds towards the campaigner's legal costs within 28 days. He ruled that the tweets had caused "Ms Monroe real and substantial distress" and she was entitled to "fair and reasonable compensation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blogger Wins Libel Damages Over Columnist's Tweets More

Blogger Wins Libel Damages Over Columnist's Tweets

Comments Filter:

  • Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.

    • Depends... from what I hear, a lot of the Fleet Street periodicals each have a massive cash stockpile that's earmarked for nothing but libel suits (they tend to attract 'em, as you might have guessed). Maybe she got a piece of that dosh from her employer? Not entirely sure, though - it would depend on whether or not she was posting in her capacity as a columnist or not. If not, then she's likely fscked.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The sad thing is that her shitty newspaper had probably come out better off from the whole affair. The Mail's main products are outrage and vitriol. Nothing like a good "snowflakes and their hurt feelings over a tweet" story that can be dragged out for years.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Zocalo ( 252965 )
        Not 100% sure either, but I think this is entirely on Hopkins. If she was acting in an "official capacity" and using a Daily Mail specific account then the lawsuit would have probably been brought against the paper based on past incidences of a similar nature in the UK, including one for a column of Hopkins' that was a £150k loss for the Daily Mail. Making an employer liable for what an employee does on their own personal account - even if apparently in an "offfical capacity" - seems like a slippery

    • Hopkins is probably wishing she took up the offer to accept "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity" right now.

      Most of the country is glad she didn't.

    • What is important is that it stinks when the courts accord themselves a major lottery win for penalising some poor bugger who made a silly mistake. As for the woman (or whatever, according to some of the comments) who couldn't simply accept an apology, I can only hope that she experiences the same viciousness in her life that she's shown toward this unfortunate. Someone who is less vulnerable than her present victim. Meanwhile I hope the bloody money chokes her.

    • "an apology and a 5,000 GBP donation to a migrants charity"

      Ha ha ha, that would have made her spit babies bones (meaning she'd have had to make a nice baby fricassee to swallow the bones ; she'd have had the recipe and materials to hand).

  • For those who don't know... (Score:5, Informative)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Friday March 10, 2017 @06:47PM (#54015667) Homepage

    For those blissfully unaware of the existence of Katie Hopkins, she's a former UK Apprentice contestant and all-round pretty shitty human being, who now makes her living out of being "controversial," and is one of the most widely hated "celebrities" in the country. Five minutes with her would make spending the whole night with Piers Morgan seem pleasant by comparison.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by janfany ( 4013185 )
      Don't see why she can't take you to court, receive 24,000 quid and stick you with a 107,000 quid bill for that comment. It seems at least as bad as the one she made and in your case it's deliberate. But then we know the law is an ass.

      • Because it's a) my opinion (also that of many, many, many other people) and b) true.

        I can shout as loudly as I want that I think Katie Hopkins is a shit stain on the boot of humanity and has an ugly, black soul, but I would never (for several reasons, the least of which is being sued by the sour-faced shit-stirring hate-monger) suggest that she condones the desecration of war monuments, or the torture of animals, or the skewering of babies on spikes, because none of those things are true (to the best of my

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Alternatively, she doesn't subscribe to the wishy washy lib-left MSM nonsense and pretend uncontrolled immigration hasn't destroyed the country and the vast majority of those entering the UK do not possess skill or education and are a massive strain on the limited resources. Furthermore, she does not pander to the must not called out muslims for their hypocrisy.

      She may be a gobby cow, but she went to Sandhurst - that's a military school of excellence. Her epilepsy cost her a military careers.

      The fact a nobo

    • For those blissfully unaware of the existence of Katie Hopkins, she's a former UK Apprentice contestant and all-round pretty shitty human being, who now makes her living out of being "controversial," and is one of the most widely hated "celebrities" in the country. Five minutes with her would make spending the whole night with Piers Morgan seem pleasant by comparison.

      She's basically a professional right wing troll, so I imagine the majority of the slashdot audience will be on her side.

  • Talk about ridiculously thin skinned. 107,000 British Pounds for what amounts to an insult... Talk about a broken system. In the free world with freedom of speech, we tweet back "You're an ass." then block the person and move on with our lives.

    By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memoria

    • Re:Glad I Live in America (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jaa101 ( 627731 ) on Friday March 10, 2017 @07:34PM (#54015883)

      By the way, since you apparently burned all your dictionaries during Brexit, libel is stating something damaging as factual about a person in writing. It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel: i.e. "I saw/heard so and so deface(d) a war memorial."

      The dictionary is the wrong book. Judges are going to go by the legal statutes which define what libel is. They only need to fall back on dictionaries if the statutes don't themselves define a term and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the laws of England spend pages and pages defining what libel is. I wouldn't blame the judge in this case either; the politicians wrote the laws.

      • If I were making a legal argument, you would be correct, but I am making a logical, moral argument (which highlights the brokenness of the UK freedom of speech). Laws are a reflection of moral will combined with state force. In representative government, the laws are the moral will of the people. If I lived in the UK, I would start a movement to push the government to pass laws to protect free speech similar to the freedom that Americans have. If the laws change, then the Judges will have to go by the n

    • Re:Glad I Live in America (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday March 10, 2017 @09:13PM (#54016259)

      In the free world with freedom of speech

      You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.

      It was clear that that tweet was an insult and not real libel

      Funny. Experts in the legal system seem to disagree with you. Which is good because you clearly don't understand how speech can be interpreted in different ways. If you think you need to explain things in perfect legalese in order to defame someone then man have you got a narrow view of how the legal world works. Careful that this doesn't bite you.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Raenex ( 947668 )

        You may think you know what that means, but you obviously have no clue how it works. Freedom of speech has zero to do with a civil trial between two people.

        Zero, huh? Are you really that stupid or myopic? Libel is a limit on free speech. Its damages are enforced by the government. If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said you might feel differently. But as long as the people you disagree with are getting sued and losing, you defend it.

        • Re:Glad I Live in America (Score:4, Insightful)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday March 11, 2017 @06:41AM (#54017417)

          Its damages are enforced by the government.

          Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.

          If the government decided to subtract 100,000 pounds from your bank account for something you said

          See you do know what free speech is, but you seem to not realise why it has nothing to do with this case. Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Raenex ( 947668 )

            Actually now I don't think you understand how a civil trial works either.

            I think you're as ignorant as you make others to be.

            Here's a tip. Anytime you mention the word government in your post, or make any reference to constitutions or rights hit cancel and start over. Because none of it has anything to do with a civil libel case.

            Actually, beyond ignorant, I'm going to go with stupid. Questions: Who was paying the judge that ruled in this case? Where did the proceedings take place? How will the judgment be enforced with regards to liability?

            Do you think, just maybe, that, *gasp*, it's the government? Or do you think this libel suit was just some folks having a friendly game for funsies?

            • Questions: Who was paying the judge that ruled in this case?

              In a civil case? The loser.

              Where did the proceedings take place?

              In any case? No one gives a shit.

              How will the judgment be enforced with regards to liability?

              The judgement is enforced through the contempt of the courts process, which is a criminal process.

              Do you think, just maybe, that, *gasp*, it's the government?

              hahahaha you have a lot to learn about how the world actually works.

              Or do you think this libel suit was just some folks having a friendly game for funsies?

              Yeah I'm sure the losing party thinks it's fun to be the equivalent of half the value of a house out of pocket.

              I think you're as ignorant as you make others to be.

              hahahhahahahahahahahahah

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Raenex ( 947668 )

                In a civil case? The loser.

                So you're saying that the judge in this case is not a government employee paid salary, and not handling this case as part of his salary?

                In any case? No one gives a shit.

                Are you saying it didn't take place in a courthouse, built and paid for by the government to handle such matters?

                The judgement is enforced through the contempt of the courts process, which is a criminal process.

                Why would that be, if the government had nothing to do with it?

                hahahaha you have a lot to learn about how the world actually works.

                You need to look in a mirror.

                Yeah I'm sure the losing party thinks it's fun to be the equivalent of half the value of a house out of pocket.

                How can this happen, if there is no government involvement? How else do you think you could be forced out of that much money by insulting somebody on Twitter?

                • Let me say two things clearly:

                  1. Blame shifting, ignorance, deflections and a strawman does not an argument make.
                  2. You are dense. Please stay out of legal topics in future since you have absolutely no idea how it functions.

                  That is all.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Raenex ( 947668 )

                    Let me say this clearly: You are knowledgeable enough to know there's a difference between criminal law and civil law. But your knowledge is too superficial [wikipedia.org] to realize that they are both government processes. That's why you won't answer my questions, because they expose your shallow knowledge like wiping away dust with a finger.

                    • I thought even libertarians agreed that you'd have to have some sort of legal process to enforce contracts, etc?

                      Whether you call it "paying tax to the government" or "a compulsory private insurance arrangement" you've got to pay for a legal system and have enforcement capabilities somewhere/somehow.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      Libertarians believe in limited government, of which civil law is a part of. I'm not saying there shouldn't be government involvement, only that it's an idiotic claim to say this isn't a free speech issue or doesn't involve the government.

      • That drivel may get you modded up on /. but in America, where we have freedom of speech, there is a much higher libel/slander threshold than in the UK. This is well documented and known by anyone who knows WTF they are talking about. The net result is to stifle legitimate free speech in the UK and leave it's citizens ignorant of key facts because people and the media fear lawsuits.

        http://www.npr.org/sections/pa... [npr.org]
        http://saperlaw.com/2010/02/24... [saperlaw.com]

        Any time you can sue an entity for libel when it is not a cl

    • I agree. Glad I no longer live in the UK, although I'm not sure that Australian judges are more sensible. Don't see why you are so touchy about people expressing their dislike of your views tho'. For the record, anyone who dislikes, disagrees with, or cares to insult me, is perfectly within their rights to do so and will receive no harm from me. I don't have to choose to get upset about it and nor should anyone else. And you may rate this any damn way you please.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      She was able to demonstrate that she suffered a financial loss because of the tweets. She got 24k to cover the loss, the rest is her lawyer's fees.

      That's the law. Write something untrue that costs someone else money, and you owe them.

  • That's bullshit (Score:4, Funny)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Friday March 10, 2017 @08:13PM (#54016067)
    That's not libel, that's censorship.

  • Just. Fucking. Wow... (Score:1, Informative)

    by chaboud ( 231590 )

    The trick is that, however much of an ass she may be, the "defamer" in this case just tweeted at the wrong handle on accident. And with some language that one would really have to stretch to take to be an explicit assertion of vandalism.

    And that's libelous? And worth 24k quid? God help us.

    • Re: Just. Fucking. Wow... (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Holmes was asked to apologise and pay a mere £5000 to charity. She chose not to so only has herself to blame. Sad!

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close