Lord McAlpine, Wronged By BBC, Demands 10,000 People On Twitter Pay Up
from the mcalpine-effect dept
Folks in the UK have spent much of this month following the story of Lord McAlpine (Robert Alistair McAlpine) the former politician who worked for Margaret Thatcher. Earlier this month, the BBC reported on its Newsnight program that an unnamed former "senior" politician in the UK government was implicated in a child abuse scandal. People on Twitter quickly assumed from the description that it was McAlpine, and the story spread quickly. A few days later, the Guardian broke the story that it was a case of mistaken identity. That scandal has thrown the BBC into chaos over its reporting.But, more interesting to us, is the fact that Lord McAlpine (not a Twitter user) has announced his intention to go after 10,000 Twitter users for either claiming he was the person in question or for retweeting someone else saying that. Some have already apologized for their tweets, but even among those who have, they claim that McAlpine's lawyers are going to ridiculous lengths, with one person, Sally Bercow, who has apologized, also claiming that McAlpine's lawyers are "ambulance chasers" and "big bullies."
But the decision to force 10,000 people to pay up seems crazy:
Lawyers acting for Lord McAlpine have also drawn up a "very long list" of targets they intend to pursue for defamation, including the authors of 1,000 original tweets and a further 9,000 individuals who retweeted those messages.Apparently if you're "small time" you won't have to pay as much:
Lord McAlpine's solicitor, Andrew Reed, said last night that those with under 500 followers will be asked to make a donation to charity as part of a settlement, with an "administration fee" for sorting it out. He added that higher profile figures, such as Ms Bercow, are "a separate matter".Here's the insane part: McAlpine claims that he's doing this to "restore my reputation." Demanding 10,000 people on Twitter pay up isn't going to "restore" your reputation. It's going to tarnish it. Yes, it's pretty clear that McAlpine was wronged by the initial reports that suggested he was involved in the scandal. And the BBC is paying up handsomely for their mistake (apparently a six figure settlement has already been negotiated). But the news that the BBC's report was false spread like wildfire. Everyone knows the report was false. Going after people on Twitter for talking about it doesn't do anything more to restore his reputation, it just makes him look like a giant bully -- and, in the process, calls much more attention to him and his tactics here.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, lord mcalpine, streisand effect, twitter, uk
Companies: bbc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading into Things....
The New Machiavelli: The Art of Politics in Business,
The Ruthless Leader: Three Classics of Strategy and Power, &
The Servant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New tweets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different Interpretations of 'Reputation'
Whether he succeeds with this mass action remains to be seen but the fact that he is trying has raised both his profile and his reputation with a not insignificant percentage of the population. If he does succeed, even partially, his street cred will go off the charts.
Is this a cultural thing? I do not know but given the media goings on we have been having and that we continue to have, seeing someone stand up to a wave of "I can say what I want and no-one can stop me" is getting him quite a bit of support and not only from the old duffers brigade.
He is also using the opportunity to publicise some rather prominent people who have participated in the feeding frenzy. Sally Bercow for one may regret her "me too" tweets and the comments about the lawyers. (I do not think that a non UK audience can possible grasp the shock of the wife of the Speaker of the House (a title going back to 1377) being so intent on having her say in public).
Context? Today we hear that the ex Head of Communications for David Cameron and the woman who was Murdoch's top operative are both getting done on bribery charges and the Levenson report is due out very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reverse Streisand Effect
Sueing them and letting everyone talk about it is probably cheaper than taking out ads all over the place to try and convince people it wasnt' him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reverse Streisand Effect
Only a guilty man would try to force radio silence on the entire Internet when pedophilia is concerned.
If it's illegal to retweet a crime story about the good Lord that happened to be false, the only way to ensure you're compliant with the law is to never discuss crimes of any kind online. And the good Lord wants that because he's ... innocent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reverse Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reverse Streisand Effect
He may not be what they said he was but he is a jerk nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reverse Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reverse Streisand Effect
I think there's marginally more fo a case here than there has been in pretty much any other case like this we've seen so far. I still don't think it would get anywhere, but I think that this is one where the case is more "correct".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reverse Streisand Effect
If one of them is a minor..?.......good. Teach them and their parents about responsible use of technology. Its child abuse? Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few points
However, this is what I think I can say:
First point. Twitter users had already named him as the suspect before Newsnight aired, which is why it is just about believable that the BBC could be liable (iirc I read something on Reddit about it that afternoon).
Second point. His Lordship has already recovered £185,000 plus costs from the BBC. At least one expert in defamation law reckons that was about double what they owed.
Third point. Under English defamation law, while each "publication" (so each tweet and retweet) counts, and each has its own maximum damage award of £275,000ish, the damages are meant to be compensatory (for his loss in reputation). Given his well-reported denial and the subsequent high-profile apologies, it is hard to imagine what his actual loss is.
Fourth point. Even if his reputation has been damaged (and not just for being brave/naive enough to try to sue 10,000 Twitter users, while not noticing Facebook, Reddit and anywhere else...), he can only recover that much in total, which means any damages award from those 10,000 can take into account the £185,000 he has already received (or the £500,000 he is rumoured to be getting from ITV).
Plus there's a general rule that the courts don't care about trivial/"de minimis" cases. Which is particularly relevant as there is a suggestion that he will be asking these 10,000 for a £5 donation to charity.
Sadly, he may well get that. Not because his case deserves it (which he may or may not), but because the threat of legal action (particularly defamation cases) and the associated massive costs, tend to be enough to scare people into conceding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few points
At first I thought it was bullshit, then It formed itself into the real word.
Barratry
though being one of those Aussie upstart colonialist I'd still say Bullshit also fits this Toff. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Board of Trustees at BBC's Children in Need
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
make that 10,001 people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there was ever a reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If there was ever a reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If there was ever a reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The poison pen argument does have some merit to it, but the U.S. libel system is far superior to the English libel system. And I am not entirely sure how you would go around policing something that can go viral such as this case here. How is it realistic to get your every day Twitter user to not have any libellous presupposition in his internet chat whatsoever? Even a casual comment voiced the wrong way might be up for grabs by the courts. Indeed, I would contend that if such logic were to be put forward about 10,000 Twitter users, then newspapers and websites who reproduce MILLIONS of printed items should be thrown in jail if they even so much as quote words from a Tweeter that were deemed to be "highly offensive" enough for prison. Because even by merely quoting the words, they have to fall under the category of "passing on the offensiveness", right?
The condition of keeping your libel lawsuits against the originator of the false claim, not the reproducers, may be a much better solution. I've read protests against this idea on the BBC that went along the lines of "Twitter isn't just your casual pub-banter - it is a public platform. It has to fall under the same terms as a mass media journalistic platform." Oh yeah? Just wait until that casual banter you could be having with your closest friend while walking down the street at night, potentially drunk, is recorded by somebody on a camera phone, intentionally or not, racks up millions of viral views on YouTube, and forces a lawsuit on your hands. Don't you tell me that state mentality will not fall into the slippery slope of "well, I guess you have to watch what you say everywhere then.. those drunken yobs, eh?".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to ask
Now Z wants to sue. He can surely sue "Magazine A" for defamation, but how about B, C and D?
The thing about Twitter is that it carrys some sort of publishing functionality. I think this kind of analogy could work.
Note that some twitter accounts have higher "reputation ranking" than the others, so when estimating the "damage" part of defamation, these Twitter accounts have arguably higher impact than some traditional magazines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OH Lordy!
I have never heard of this guy, so....What reputation?
Ask me if I care...go ahead, ask me...will someone ask?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OH Lordy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://twitter.com/ZOO/status/271545777988464640
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compensation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Twitter and not Facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confuse a Lord
[ link to this | view in chronology ]