I have to put this image here so that I can have an avi to link to on Facebook. Sorry!
There isn’t exactly a dearth of matters over which to take issue with Lord McAlpine, so it seems a pity that certain people went out on a limb in order to accuse him of something he did not do.
Some might suppose that the libel laws in the U.K. are far too stringent but most would agree that journalists ought to check their facts before going with a story. The astonishing laxity of the BBC Newsnight journalists in this regard is breathtaking and it’s certainly right that someone should be held to account for libelling Lord McAlpine. Except of course, Newsnight did not libel him; his name was not mentioned in the programme. However, because of activity on Twitter in which his name appeared prominently, McAlpine’s lawyers were able to argue that the Newsnight programme left little doubt as to the target of its accusations . This little bit of legal legerdemain appears to have netted Lord McAlpine £185,000 out of court!
Now, his legal team have their sights set on a number of those who tweeted Lord McAlpine’s name in connection with these allegations. Those people should be very worried.
You might think that as a writer, I would be implacably in favour of freedom of speech. Regular readers will know that this is not necessarily the case. To be libelled (often on the whim of an editor) often results in an utter destruction of livelihood and reputation. Even following a retraction and payment of some sort of compensation (provided you can get the cash together to challenge what is written about you) that livelihood and reputation may remain compromised for the rest of your life.
As Lord McAlpine put it: it was "terrifying" to find himself "a figure of public hatred". If it’s any consolation, he was a figure of my hatred long before this incident but the point is well made. The people who tweeted about him really should have known better. I feel quite cross that he has been given this opportunity to feather his already rather downy nest at the expense of those who can probably ill afford it (the BBC included).
No-one wants to see the U.K. press emasculated and muzzled, but if the alternative is to live in a country where anyone can say whatever they like about others and (provided they are big enough), get away with it. Those people who are fond of slagging others off online should draw a salutary lesson from the McAlpine affair and rein in their excesses unless they can find evidence to back up any assertions.
As soon as they have it, of course: fire at will!
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/news/2012/11/366-lord-mcalpine-to-sue-twitter-users-for-false-paedophilia-accusations
Some might suppose that the libel laws in the U.K. are far too stringent but most would agree that journalists ought to check their facts before going with a story. The astonishing laxity of the BBC Newsnight journalists in this regard is breathtaking and it’s certainly right that someone should be held to account for libelling Lord McAlpine. Except of course, Newsnight did not libel him; his name was not mentioned in the programme. However, because of activity on Twitter in which his name appeared prominently, McAlpine’s lawyers were able to argue that the Newsnight programme left little doubt as to the target of its accusations . This little bit of legal legerdemain appears to have netted Lord McAlpine £185,000 out of court!
Now, his legal team have their sights set on a number of those who tweeted Lord McAlpine’s name in connection with these allegations. Those people should be very worried.
You might think that as a writer, I would be implacably in favour of freedom of speech. Regular readers will know that this is not necessarily the case. To be libelled (often on the whim of an editor) often results in an utter destruction of livelihood and reputation. Even following a retraction and payment of some sort of compensation (provided you can get the cash together to challenge what is written about you) that livelihood and reputation may remain compromised for the rest of your life.
As Lord McAlpine put it: it was "terrifying" to find himself "a figure of public hatred". If it’s any consolation, he was a figure of my hatred long before this incident but the point is well made. The people who tweeted about him really should have known better. I feel quite cross that he has been given this opportunity to feather his already rather downy nest at the expense of those who can probably ill afford it (the BBC included).
No-one wants to see the U.K. press emasculated and muzzled, but if the alternative is to live in a country where anyone can say whatever they like about others and (provided they are big enough), get away with it. Those people who are fond of slagging others off online should draw a salutary lesson from the McAlpine affair and rein in their excesses unless they can find evidence to back up any assertions.
As soon as they have it, of course: fire at will!
http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/news/2012/11/366-lord-mcalpine-to-sue-twitter-users-for-false-paedophilia-accusations
RSS Feed
