Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

Yeah, context is key here... Damages can also mean physical bodily harm. By GP's reasoning, we could interpret the article as saying someone was medically wounded and claim that to be a correct interpretation because it's one of the many meanings depending on context.

The title isn't a reasonable one: the very prejudicial descriptor 'troll' is language from lawyers from one side of a legal dispute. The BBC isn't credibly a neutral arbiter, because the litigant is one of their presenters.

This is not taking any position on the underlying dispute (which is apparently about Northern Ireland politics [0]), nor is it a criticism of or specific to the BBC.

[0] This Reddit discussion (probably) isn't about the accusation that allegedly was defamatory (that's not public knowledge AFAIK), but I think illustrates the character of the dispute, between the Twitter user and the BBC presenter:

>"His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the airtime. That's gone from Twitter. Does anyone have a copy?" ("His" refers to "@PastorJimberoo1, @PastorJimberoo3")

https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha...

~~~~~

[very late EDIT]: I've found one of the allegedly libelous claims. In the Irish Times, the Twitter user is reported as saying (through an attorney)

>"I also set up a change.org petition against Mr Nolan, which had been based entirely on false and defamatory allegations, with the aim of undermining and damaging his professional reputation."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/twitter-user-t...

There's clear evidence (from searching social media, from multiple directions: @username + 'petition', or stephan nolan + 'petition', &c.) that the referenced petition is this one, which asks the BBC to cancel Stephen Nolan's program:

https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be... (is this link dead for everyone or just me?)

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ...

So, one of the claims that's conceded as defamatory is (to my inference, drawn from the above):

>"For example, on 3rd February 2021, the show provided a platform for an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations to threaten violence relating to the NI Protocol. This is highly irresponsible and risks inflaming tensions which could lead to violence. However this is not a unique example and the show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations."

For even further confirmation: here's the BBC singling out this petition as defamatory, back in Feburary:

>"THE BBC has said an online petition campaigning for the cancellation of The Stephen Nolan Show is an attempt to “smear and censor” its journalism."

>"The petition, which passed 10,000 signatures over the weekend, claims the award-winning BBC Radio Ulster programme “seeks to stir sectarian tensions for ratings”."

>"A statement accompanying the online campaign cites an interview broadcast on Radio Ulster on February 3 2021 with “an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations”, where it claims threats of violence were made."

>"It is understood the comments relate to the interview with the chair of Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), David Campbell on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where he told Mr Nolan: "If it comes to the bit where we have to fight physically to maintain our freedoms within the UK, so be it.""

https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/1...

I see people make this absurd argument applied to various subjects constantly on HN.

So a guy hits a triple, should I then say, "wow that guy hit a home run" because in business meetings "hitting a home run" means "doing a good job".

Or can we agree that when talking about baseball we probably shouldn't use the term home run to mean good job because that would be incorrect in this context specific setting.

Well, using the word damages in the general sense but in relation to a legal case is the same thing as calling a triple a home run. It's wrong, because the context makes it wrong.

Right. Maybe I'm biased because I'm American, but I think the US defamation laws seem pretty reasonable. I'm curious to see the tweets so I can see how I feel about the UK's laws and enforcement.

> As for the Trump ban, freedom of speech also means freedom from compelled speech. The government can't force a store to sell a particular newspaper, or force a newspaper to run a particular story. Same applies to internet websites. If you have a blog with a comments section, the government can't force you to host certain comments.

I personally don’t find this argument particularly compelling when the entity in question is a platform that arguably has more influence over public discourse than most (all?) governments.

There is an enormous difference between someone’s blog and a web site that is used as a communication platform by politicians and world leaders, and which has a user base numbering in the millions or even billions.