41–50 of 256 posts
It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
You're advocating for the government to become the arbitrator of true and fiction for private speech. Seems like an absolutely terrible idea to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> well-concealed Are you sure about that? It seems pretty out in the open.
We have plenty of both kinds :). "Truth" being a valid defense against defamation laws protects some whistleblowers, but for the big stuff we play the "national security" card.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
"Despite this attempt to destroy his reputation with falsehoods, Mr Nolan has agreed not to name this individual, dependent on his future conduct ." I remember this same line from the CNN Trump WWE GIF guy - the cases are different, for one this is a legal case and it being in the UK. Here is what CNN said in that story[1]: CNN is not publishing “HanA*holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an…
I believe that depending on the situation and the individual or individuals allegedly responsible for these defamations, their identity might be very relevant. In the UK case, it seems it was someone noteworthy and rich enough that settling the case while paying 6 figures in damage was cheaper than the PR nightmare that would come with his identity being revealed.
Also, keep in mind that we live during times where cancel culture is raging very strong on social media, and people that make this claims can very easily lose their careers over stupid things they say online. I would say it is quite likely that the individuals themselves asked for anonymity in cases, and the attacked parties granted this so long as they don't repeat their behavior.
> 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 re…
What I found interesting was the spectacle of Mark Zuckerberg in front of congress. And yet no action whatsoever has come from it.
I think part of the issue is that the very people who could push for legislation (the voters) are also the unwitting products of these companies (sold to their real customers the advertisers).
So the manipulation has gone so deep and been so effective the majority of people aren’t realizing what’s happening.
This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in those cases.
But if I say "seaish is a pedophile and went to Asia for rentboys" then that's quite another thing (and these were among the claims that were made).
Not that the Twitter harassment of women in particular isn't an issue though; but I don't think it's really on the same level.