Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 256 posts

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#31

Post by Barrin92 »

akersten wrote: post #14
echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case). There's a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are…

I'm not really sure why being famous is supposed to diminish your rights in regards to defamation, or really in regards to anything. If someone spreads falsehoods against another person in a way that damages their reputation they ought to have legal means at their disposal to set that straight.

I don't really see why the US gets this right at all, it's just part of Americas culture where lies and truth are treated as equal and as a result integrity has completely vanished from public discourse. Very visible in how all politicians are treated as 'being the same', which is the logical consequence of this atmosphere of defamation which trolls abuse with impunity. If you can lie without repercussion about everyone, the public cannot distinguish reality from fiction.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#32

Post by meowface »

echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

I think it just has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone anonymously tweets something knowingly false along the lines of "[X] is a rapist/pedophile and I have proof", I agree you should be able to sue that person. A false, defamatory accusation like that can easily ruin your career and life.

But I can imagine plenty of things that someone could argue are defamatory which fall into a much grayer area where I believe court involvement isn't warranted. I think this debate will just run in circles until all of the tweets in question are presented.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#33

Post by chrisseaton »

paulpauper wrote: post #17

Will he be able to colllect? It does send a message though.

> so good luck collecting

Why would you not pay something that you settled?

People don't do that - because they wanted to settle to avoid the court case. If you didn't pay you'd go straight into a court case.

Likely they already gave evidence of ability to pay as part of the discussions.

What you're talking about is court awarded damages which doesn't apply here as that's not what we're talking about.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#34

Post by tremon »

kyrra wrote: post #13

Reading the article is important here. The person that was being sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous. They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just paying and hiding.

Should have asked for a 7-figure sum, then.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#35

Post by [deleted] »

s_dev wrote: post #6
echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

Ireland like the UK has strong defamation laws. I suspect it plays a part in concealing political corruption rather protecting an individuals right to a reputation as pointed out by EU officials a couple of times.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#36

Post by dangerface »

akersten wrote: post #14
echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case). There's a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are…

> They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled.

Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being spread about them.

I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars at the expense of every one else.

I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest of us, that seems deeply biased and un fair.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#37

Post by moksly »

> The individual admitted running a campaign which "involved the systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations" against Mr Nolan.

I think that it is good that someone got to own up for the turdslinging they do online, but why are we ok with platforms that aren’t held accountable for the “systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations” they enable? What if you don’t have BBC lawyers and resources behind you when you or your little company is targeted?

I know this may be a little too Scandinavian for some HN users, but I simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them. We have laws and bureaucracies in place to govern traditional media, exactly because the two world and the Cold War showed us what propaganda is capable of, and yet, we let these new platforms do whatever they want?

Maybe that would break Social Media, because their automatic moderation wouldn’t be up to the task, but so what? The way things are moving forward, the platforms claim to have upped their moderation, but as long as they aren’t actually held accountable by any democratic institution, they will still mainly be moderated by the advertising industry and that’s just not not what’s in public interest.

I know Donald Trump is a touchy subject to bring up. But why was he banned when he was? Shouldn’t he either have been de-platformed long ago, or not at all? Sure was convenient for the companies to do so when they did, wasn’t it? I’m personally happy that I haven’t heard a single thing about American republicans in 2021, but I still think it’s a democratic issue that it is a select few tech-billionaires that can remove someone like Donald Trump from my life and not any form of public institution.

It all goes back to the lack of moderation and the lack of consequences for these Social Media platforms. Yeah, one “ systematic dissemination campaign” was stopped because the BBC protects its journalists, but how many go unpunished?

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#38

Post by bpodgursky »

londons_explore wrote: post #20

Not many people have 6 figures lying around to pay... I think most regular people, faced with the offer of a 6 figure settlement, would probably fight it to the bitter end in court, before claiming bankruptcy. I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6 figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?

I think a _ton_ of people would come up with 6 figures if the alternative was jail time.

It doesn't have to be cash in the bank -- take out debt, remortgage your house, sell your car, borrow from friends and family, etc.

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#39

Post by metalliqaz »

tremon wrote: post #34
kyrra wrote: post #13

Reading the article is important here. The person that was being sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous. They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just paying and hiding.

Should have asked for a 7-figure sum, then.

maybe they did, but then the troll would have fought the case and probably won

everything is a negotiation

Edit: 1 downvote today and now I can't respond

Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

#40

Post by [deleted] »

s_dev wrote: post #6
echelon wrote: post #2

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

Ireland like the UK has strong defamation laws. I suspect it plays a part in concealing political corruption rather protecting an individuals right to a reputation as pointed out by EU officials a couple of times.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN