Defamatory laws could be used way more often, seen how much disinformation there is out there.
Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
121–130 of 256 posts
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#122Earlier 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
Base on what evidence do you think the potential conclusion the the troll is winning the case?
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
If it’s expensive, I imagine lawyers on both sides try to encourage going to court!
One small-town lawyer will go broke but two small-town lawyers can make a fortune.
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a warning to all trolls, they say in the article. The exact warning is undefined however.
The lack of concrete definitions and examples makes it a warning to everyone.
What's the warning?
Twitter will sell you out to the bbc?
The BBC in northern Ireland is pushing unionist views and the BBC will crush anyone who calls them out.
Don't mess with the BBC?
Use a vpn and/or tor?
Without the actual story it becomes an abuse of power story. A bully pushing around the little guy.
If it were racist, sexist or homophobic we would have about heard that. The lack of message is very telling.
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#125> 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 simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them The scale of content being posted on social media is such that this liability makes running a social media platform effectively impossible. All user generated content would have to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be prohibitively expensive. As for the Trump ban, freedom of speech…
> The scale of content being posted on social media is such that this liability makes running a social media platform effectively impossible. All user generated content would have to be manually reviewed before being posted. This would be prohibitively expensive.
Since when is "operating responsibly would be too expensive" an excuse that we allow businesses to use to avoid any responsibility for the damage they cause? If your business model can't function at scale without incurring enormous externalities to your society, it doesn't have a right to exist.
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars and the expense of every one else. 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.
Every government in existence, including that of the United States, arbitrates speech and fact. That's why perjury and false advertising are illegal, for instance.
Your examples are not relative to the discussion. Perjury is a crime because people have to tell the truth in the court system. The whole justice system and thus, society, would break down if anyone could say whatever they wanted in a court of law without being punished.
False Advertising is a crime because it is a commercial activity with the intent to commit fraud and not an individual saying their opinions.
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Say our product sucks? Defamation. Claim you were sexually assaulted? Defamation. Even if what you said is true, would you be willing to spend the money to go to court and try to fight a defamation lawsuit?
>Defamation is a great way for those with money to silence dissent and avoid any consequences. Your comment seems to fit the profile of Brewdog, a UK based 'craft brewery'. They are known for deliberately courting controversy. The egregious examples include frivolous claims on trademarks, misogyny, bullying, harassment, amongst toe-curling and churlish behaviour, when they appeared on a BBC programme Who's The Boss .…
This comment seems entirely unrelated to what it is responging to...
You seem to be accusing the person you are responding to of being Brewdog? Or were you trying to say Brewdog uses defamation to silence criticism of their marketing tactics? Or are you trying to promote Brewdog by publicising their deliberate controversies? I just can't figure it out.
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#128Earlier 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
Base on what evidence do you think the potential conclusion the the troll is winning the case?
I don't know, that's why I prefixed the possible scenario with "maybe"
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
Damages is a legal term of art that implies a finding of fault in a judicial proceeding and a corresponding award by the court/arbitrator/etc. This is not that: no fault/guilt need be admitted (though it was here). It's just a contract to accept a certain amount of money and in exchange to not proceed with a lawsuit.
In England, part 36 uses the term damages to refer to the monetary value of the settlement. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...
Re: Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
No. I’ve never seen that term used except for a court ordered payment. Anything else is called a “settlement,” or “settled for $x” or even more explicitly “settled out of court for $x”
In England it is used in the context of a settlement. E.g. in part 36 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rule...