

The Dangers for Libellous Tweeters in the UK - ytNumbers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20299551

======
theorique
A twitter user in the UK was arrested for sending a racist tweet.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-18694505>

While racism is deplorable, and should be discouraged, it's a scary violation
of human rights and free speech to arrest a person for expressing such views.

~~~
dspillett
The difference, as the law as currently pratised seems to work, is the
difference between _stating_ a view and _broadcasting_ it. A tweet is publicly
available (even if only a select view will ever care to see it) so is assumed
to be a broadcast (in the same way a radio statsion listened to by just four
people and their dogs would).

Sometimes tweets are taken as _incitement_ to others to take the view (or take
actino on the view). This is often over-zealous though not always wrong: take
ol' wangy-eye of the BNP and his suggestion in a tweet that peopel picket a
gay couple's home for instance.

------
tomjen3
Isn't it about time that we can prevent UK ip addresses from seeing our tweets
and blog posts?

Because these kinds of laws are clearly nuts.

~~~
Overclock
Would Twitter let go a major market for the sake of a few ruined lives? I
don't think so.

------
da_n
"...in previous cases the courts have made it very clear that they expect a
defendant to demonstrate that he or she has engaged in responsible journalism
before the defence will succeed, including verifying the story and giving the
subject an opportunity to comment."

This is just lunacy and only highlights the urgent need to abolish current
libel/defamation laws and introduce new ones protecting free speech.

------
thedufer
I don't understand how retweeting makes one liable for libel. Isn't it just an
attributed quote? Is accurately quoting someone really a punishable offense in
the UK? This is a frightening idea, even outside the realm of Twitter.

~~~
pan69
Just an attributed quote? If I start quoting passages from Mein Kampf I'm sure
my intentions are understood. But you're saying that I can just claim; "It's
not me saying this, I'm just quoting Adolf, don't blame me".

People need to think before they act instead of just sheep herding themselves
by mindlessly retweeting crap some other donkey is saying on the Internet. If
a few of these idiots need to be taken to court as an example, so be it.

~~~
theorique
Taken to court for exercising their free speech rights? Even if it's _"crap
some other donkey is saying on the Internet"_ , it's still protected by law in
a lot of jurisdictions. And I'm thankful for that.

~~~
pan69
There is a difference between "free speech rights" and not taking
responsibility for your free speech rights. Just because you have free speech
doesn't mean you can (or should) be able to just quote anything or anyone
without being accountable for it. If you feel like you should be able to
retweet "crap" that's being said about someone without knowing the facts
(defamation of character) you should also be man enough to be accountable if
it turns out you were wrong.

Free speech isn't a licence to kill.

~~~
theorique
Speaking isn't killing.

Of course, it's good that a person be held accountable for their tweets and
other communications. Neo-nazi or racist speech can be condemned, libel and
false speech can be condemned. A person doing this can be outed as a bigot or
liar.

But is that a reason for arresting a person? In the USA, the First Amendment
to the Constitution says no. In other countries, apparently this is allowable,
which is a dangerous tool in the hands of authorities.

------
7952
Would it be better to have a DMCA style process for deleting anonymous online
libel?

------
aw3c2
*in the UK

~~~
ytNumbers
Thanks. I've edited the title accordingly.

