IT IS TIME TO PUT TWITTER IN THE DOCK

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/it-is-time-to-put-twitter-in-the-dock.19381945

It is time to put Twitter in the dock

Iain MacWhirter
Columnist
'PAEDO Tories Outed On Live TV' was how one tabloid newspaper reported the ambush of David Cameron by Phillip Schofield on ITV's This Morning programme last Thursday.

The presenter thrust into the Prime Minister's lap a list of the names of alleged paedophiles that had been plucked from the internet before the show went on air.

It was a disgraceful stunt and Cameron handled it rather well by not losing his temper and by warning there was a risk of a witch- hunt of gay politicians. But the damage had already been done, as is made clear by the Daily Star headline. A raft of prominent public figures who are probably innocent are now ineluctably connected with child abuse because their names are all over the internet.

Some on the twittersphere seem to think this doesn't matter because they're all Tories. But it does. Imagine if your father or mother were accused of being a child abuser. Imagine if you were yourself outed wrongly on Twitter as a paedophile. How could you prevent a prospective employer Googling your name before giving you the job? Are they going to spend hours establishing whether or not the claims are true? Of course not. They'll simply pass you over in favour of someone safer – no smoke without fire.

Immense harm has been done to the reputation of Lord McAlpine, the former Tory Treasurer, who is clearly not an abuser, as an investigation by The Guardian established. It was a Newsnight programme 10 days ago that launched the paedo-hunt when it reported that an un-named senior top Tory had been identified by a victim of child abuse in a Welsh children's home in the 1970s. Within hours, McAlpine's name was being posted on Twitter, along with a dozen other names including a former prime minister and five former Conservative cabinet ministers. By Friday, the story was being so widely circulated that the former Tory chairman was forced to issue a statement denying the allegations made against him, thus giving them even more publicity.

If ever there were a case of the stable door being closed after the horse had bolted, this was it. A digital hackpack, including prominent journalists such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot, had been punting McAlpine's name across the twittersphere for fully 10 days. Monbiot has since apologised for "contributing to the febrile atmosphere". But numerous blogs and websites have also published the full list of names of the alleged members of the Tory paedophile ring, including the-alternative.co.uk and Men Will Pause, a blog written by a woman called Caroline Wilde.

Now, some might be puzzled by my use of the word "published" in connection with Twitter. Most people don't think of the micro-blogging site as a publication with any editorial responsibility for what is posted there. I keep hearing references to "rumours on the internet", as if these were private conversations between individuals. Many appear to believe that, as Lord Leveson put it, Twitter is "just like people talking in a pub". If so, it is a very big pub that is visited by hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis – far more than read any newspaper.

The truth is that Twitter is a medium of publication just like this newspaper. Consider: you can read this article online and you may be doing so now. If I were to place a link here to the tweets and websites publishing the list of "paedophile" names, you could see them in an instant. What is the difference, then, between the internet version of this article and the articles I link to? There is none. They are both in the public domain; they are mediums for the dissemination of information and views to the general public.

Under the law, newspapers are liable for any defamatory statements made by their journalists or contributors. If someone had posted Lord McAlpine's name in a comment on a newspaper website last week, the publication could have been taken to court. This is how the law on defamation works – but for some reason the law does not apply to Twitter.

Some claim Twitter is not a publisher because it doesn't edit the posts. That's irrelevant – it would be no defence against a defamatory post on a newspaper comment site that it had not been edited. Anyway, Twitter does edit its posts, and blocks anything that involves child pornography or promotes Nazi or racist propaganda. It announced last year that it also selectively blocks tweets that might be considered illegal or offensive in countries such as China or Thailand. The micro-blogging site was accused of conniving with censorship in repressive regimes. So, it cannot claim that it takes no interest in the content of tweets – it makes a lot of money from them for a start.

Now, I am utterly opposed to all forms of censorship. However, it cannot be right for blameless individuals to have their reputations destroyed by false allegations about child abuse. Being defamed on the internet is worse than being defamed by a newspaper because in the old days at least the remaining editions could be pulped. An allegation made on the internet cannot be destroyed or withdrawn. Once it's out there, it's out there. There is no way Lord McAlpine's name could be erased from the countless tweets, emails, blogs and sites where he has been falsely linked to child abuse.

And it is not going to end here. In the wake of the Savile abuse scandal, there is something like a witch-hunt going on throughout the internet. Victims are being invited to come forward with claims, often decades old, against figures of authority. More names will be posted on sites. We are told that this is unfortunate but necessary if the guilty are to be brought to justice and the victims to achieve closure. Certainly, the law should not be used to protect the rich and powerful from their wrong-doing. But the presumption of innocence has to be the basis of any fair legal system. This means protecting people from false accusations. And the only way to do this is to hold the publications themselves responsible for material appearing on their pages.
Individuals who post online are not themselves above the law, as nine men and women who recently tweeted the name of a rape victim discovered when they landed in court. A trainee accountant, Paul Chambers, was convicted in 2010 of sending a menacing communication when he joked on Twitter about blowing up an airport. Last year, a juror in a trial in Luton Crown Court, Theodora Dallas, was prosecuted just for looking up one of the defendants on the internet. It cannot be right for individuals to be brought to book but not the people who make money out of their defamations.

There is no need for new legislation or regulation of the press, only for the existing law to be enforced. There should be equal treatment of newspapers and the internet. You can't have one law for the analogue media and another for the digital media – the distinction simply cannot sensibly be made. It is time to put Twitter in the dock.

===========

Here's hoping that the likes of Dodgy and Zoe Pillock take in the meaning of that, and the part they are playing in causing the censorship of the internet.

As for Bennett wearing his Zampos head to direct traffic to some of the most disgusting sites on the internet - no-one would be surprised if he hears from Lord McAlpine's lawyers about that.

Reminds me of the time when a mob descended onto a house and started attacking it and threatening the occupants because the mob heard that the occupants were


PEDIATRICIANS

Oh my my!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9673603/Lord-McAlpine-scandal-shows-Leveson-must-find-a-way-of-reining-in-Twitter-and-Facebook-MPs-say.html

Lord McAlpine scandal shows Leveson 'must find a way of reining in Twitter and Facebook' MPs say
Lord Justice Leveson must find a way to stop people using Facebook, Twitter and other websites to spread “heinous” slurs on people when he delivers his report into media standards next month, senior MPs have warned.

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter8:05PM GMT 12 Nov 2012

Lord McAlpine was wrongly identified as a paedophile through a combination of false reports on television and online, showing that if the Leveson report is restricted to criticism of newspapers, it will only address “yesterday’s problems”.
Conor Burns MP, a Conservative member of Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport select committee, said it was now essential for Lord Justice Leveson to address the issue of regulating websites.

He said: “At the moment you have got this situation where newspapers are rightly constrained by libel and defamation laws but people are linking to the stories through the internet and spreading vile and heinous lies about people, who have no right of redress.
“Lord McAlpine’s reputation was in tatters last week because people were able to post things with complete impunity on the internet. We are going to have to bring Facebook and Twitter under the same laws as libels committed by newspapers or television channels.”
He said it was a “serious problem” that must be addressed by Lord Justice Leveson otherwise “it may well turn out to be the case that Lord Justice Leveson is looking into yesterday’s problems”

Mr Burns was speaking after Lord Justice Leveson faced criticism at the Society of Editors annual conference in Belfast.
The media barrister David Price QC said he did not feel the judge had been the right person to lead the inquiry into media standards because: “I know what he is like and I know how lawyers think about things.”
Angie Bray MP, another member of the DCMS committee, said: “If there is no way of bringing Twitter and the like into line it makes it absolutely ridiculous to start talking about statutory regulation of the newspaper industry.
“Until you can ensure that everyone is starting off on a level playing field it’s absolutely bonkers to impose further regulation on the newspaper industry, it just wouldn’t be logical.”
Meanwhile John Whittingdale, the chairman of the DCMS committee, told the editors’ conference that statutory regulation of the media would set a dangerous precedent and send out the wrong message to non-democratic countries.

============

There really couldn't be a worse time for Bennett to be in trouble, could there?

There really couldn't be a worse time for Bennett to be in trouble, could there?

In a word? NO.

This is perfectly correct. What is the point in regulating The Media if Twitter and FaceBook are allowed to say whatever they like. And this is where most of the damage is being done, often to very ordinary people.
Every day more and more people are acquiring computers, and every web site and newspaper has links to Twitter and FaceBook. People are being actively encouraged to connect to these things, so something is going to have to be done.

More bad news for Bennett:



Twitter users in breach of libel laws will be punished, government warns


Twitter and Facebook users who libel individuals on the internet will face the same punishment as newspaper editors in breach of the law, the government has warned.


Social network users who 'blacken' the name of public figures online could face court action, justice secretary Chris Grayling told MPs today.
It comes following a Newsnight report which mistakenly implicated Lord McAlpine in a child abuse scandal, leading to the resignation of BBC director general George Entwistle.
It also prompted ITV presenter Phillip Schofield to ambush David Cameron with a list of alleged paedophiles he had found on the internet on live TV.
Mr Grayling said he is 'as concerned as anybody else about what has taken place over the last two weeks'.
He added: 'It is utterly, utterly wrong that anybody should have their name blackened, inappropriately and falsely, on any form of social media.
'The laws of libel apply equally to what you publish on your Facebook page or Twitter page as they do in a printed form.
'Those who are damaged in that way have full legal redress to try and get proper justice.'

The BBC launched an immediate inquiry into the fiasco which found the programme had failed to carry out 'basic journalistic checks' before airing its controversial report.
Conservative MP Conor Burns said it was important Lord Justice Leveson addresses the regulation of websites when he delivers his report into media standards next month.
'At the moment you have got this situation where newspapers are rightly constrained by libel and defamation laws but people are linking to the stories through the internet and spreading vile and heinous lies about people, who have no right of redress,' he said.
'Lord McAlpine’s reputation was in tatters last week because people were able to post things with complete impunity on the internet.
'We are going to have to bring Facebook and Twitter under the same laws as libels committed by newspapers or television channels.'


Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/917808-twitter-users-in-breach-of-libel-laws-will-be-punished-government-warns#ixzz2C8rcVwqm

Wonder if he still thinks it was clever to post what he did last week? Especially as, unlike some pimply troll in a badsit, he has gone out of his way to get attention from the media.

OMG.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/when-do-you-say-enough-time-to-bring.html

Yes, enough's enough. There is no room for doubt about that.

Unbelievable. Definitely this is one for the police, Tony. No question.

Your law enforcement is dealing with it.

Seconded.

Rothley Pillowcase ‏@RothleyPillow
Dear followers > If you're not that keen on me > PLEASE F**K OFF NOW > Coz I'm about to get REALLY rather OBNOXIOUS :- ) )


Think she means, Even more obnoxious.

That's the only conclusion, Bonny.

Indeed, the only assumption.

Someone or other on DS thinks...

I'd also be surprised if they really did have a list of all the people who trended his name

What? How hard do they think it is to run the appropriate software and get the whole lot?

Some people are in for nasty shocks.

That could be fear you read, Bonny, from one of those tweeting?

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/oh-dear-bennett-could-be-up-creek.html

Doesn't get any better with rereading, does it?

'We know who you are and what you have done,' solicitor Andrew Reid said

He certainly knows about Bennett.

Serves him right.

I do hope Bennett is reading the Mail:

Mr Reid confirmed there was a 'very long list' of people they planned to contact, including 'other broadcasters' and 'well known' tweeters like Sally Bercow.
'I would say Mrs Bercow would be quite well known. She hasn't yet been in touch and apologised. I am most surprised that she hasn't done so. Hopefully she will and will reach an arrangement with us because we're listening. We would rather do that because it saves a lot of time and cost for them'.
When asked if McAlpine will sue if she does not get in touch, Mr Reid said: 'She would have left us with no choice.'

He also warned that other tweeters, even those who deleted their accounts or messages, will be contacted so should come forward.


He added that it was time to clamp down on Twitter, which allowed people to say 'vile, disgusting' things.
'We have been inundated by the public who have wanted us to deal with this problem of Twitter, and have encouraged and in some cases have actually offered us funds.

'Twitter is not a place where you can gossip and say the nastiest things possible with impunity,' he said.
'We've been watching people who have been taking down what they put on Twitter. What they don't seem to understand is that once it's there, you can't take it down and what's more we really have all the information,' he said.
'Not only do we have it, but we have managed to find a couple of firms of experts who are able to produce the pre-tweets, the post-tweets, the effect of the tweets and the re-tweets.
'So what starts as a sort of maybe one (recipient) ends up as 100,000 or more in some cases.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233286/Phillip-Schofield-disciplined-ITV-ambushed-David-Cameron-live-TV-list-alleged-Tory-child-abusers.html#ixzz2CJsx2uho
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

You know he has.

No doubt he'll see this, too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978

The BBC has settled with Lord McAlpine over a Newsnight broadcast which led to him being wrongly implicated in child abuse allegations.

The damages total £185,000 plus costs.

bb1 wrote:No doubt he'll see this, too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20348978

The BBC has settled with Lord McAlpine over a Newsnight broadcast which led to him being wrongly implicated in child abuse allegations.

The damages total £185,000 plus costs.

Oh dear, since the house is already on the way out to pay for earlier libels, this means the cludgie will have to go as well! LL

Not the cludgie, LL? That is really harsh.....

lily wrote:Not the cludgie, LL? That is really harsh.....

He deserves to lose the cludgie, it's winter soon and going behind a bush with sheets from the Sun is a good payment for one's misbehaviour, don't you think? LL