91–100 of 256 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Even if the case turns out your way, the laywer costs to fight the case in court may be large enough that settling is better for your. It doesn't matter which side of this you are on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I don't have a horse in this race, but playing devil's advocate: USA doesn't have strong defamation laws, and yet we still have well-concealed corruption.
> 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…
I was in the “libertarian” camp on this. But now looking at all the damage caused (including killings in India on false social media rumors) I certainly think “mainstreaming of social media” is warranted. For one remove anonymity from social media. That in itself should clean up half this mess with existing laws.
And it should also enable going after people with unpopular opinions even more.
And preventing people from spreading disinformation doesn't mean that the disinformation will magically go away. It's just that the only people allowed to spread disinformation will be the government and the capitalists. And you will be punished if you call them out on it.
It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.
Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There's a big difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he's a pedophile. How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the press omits the most important part?
It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter, and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.
Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There's a big difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he's a pedophile. How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the press omits the most important part?
It's a warning to all trolls, they say in the article. The exact warning is undefined however.
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.
Disclaimer - not speaking for myself, employer, or previous work in the armed forces.
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…