A lot of people, some of whom have ulterior motives to do with their animosity to @jk_rowling, are professing some confusion about using ‘her exact words’. A few points…
In defamation you are responsible for the plain meaning of what you publish, as well as any implications those words might have as well.
In this case @jk_rowling was selectively quoted. A few words were taken from a longer tweet and the result was defamatory. It is very obviously defamatory and those claiming it wasn’t are being disingenuous.
A lesson learnt the hard way. If you selectively quote someone and make it appear they said something that they very clearly did not mean, then you’d better be prepared to defend yourself in the courts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Regarding the MP arrest, the legal requirement to maintain anonymity of a complainant is not normally a reason not to identify an arrested person. The media know well how to report such matters.
A few points on this as there is a load of conspiracy bobbins appearing about this on here. Firstly, the MPs name is not the subject of a D-Notice, or DSMA Notice, as they are now called. It just isn’t. If you think it is, have a little lie down and calm yourself...
Secondly, ‘ordinary’ people arrested for sexual offences are not ‘always named’ by the media. The media might sometimes get a tip off if their name, but unless you’re 100% certain your tip is right, naming is very risky...
Quick thread on the libel and privacy actions threatened against those who published the leaked #LabourReport. Firstly, libel. Ordinarily, if an organisation publishes arrowy of disciplinary investigations and proceedings, the media would feel safe in publishing it...
This is because they would have a defence of qualified privilege - this protects the media reporting so long as it is a fair, accurate report, on a matter of public interest, published without malice and subject to a right of reply, if requested...
This is a fundamental journalistic defence, it protects our reports of Parliament, of local government and of police press conferences, to name but a few. However, it protects information *published* by these bodies, not leaked...
Important judgement by Mr Justice Knowles - Humberside Police acted unlawfully in visiting a man’s place of work when investigating allegations of transphobic tweets - judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…, but College of Policing operational guidance is lawful.
Extraordinary language by the judge in this case:
Of the woman whose complaint gave rise to the police investigation, the judge says this:
A short-ish thread on #shorthand, as it’s getting a bit of attention after a Uni dropped it from a journalism syllabus.
When I started as a reporter back in 1988 it was an essential skill. Most reporters would spend a good deal of time reporting courts, councils, inquests and public meetings, where it is absolutely crucial to take an accurate record...
But journalism has changed. In 1988 I was using a manual typewriter at work - Victorian technology. In the 32 years I’ve been in the job it had completely transformed.
I’m surprised I have to explain this to journalists, but here goes, a short thread on #BorisJohnson and privacy...
Question 1. If you are having an argument so loud and violent it can be heard in neighbouring properties and the street, and the police are called, do you have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. I’m not polling this, the answer is no.
Question 2. If you are a person who might possibly become Prome Minister in the near future, is your behaviour in such a situation a matter of public interest. Again, no poll, I’m not going to allow people to be wilfully wrong, the answer is yes. Now can we move on?
Katie Hopkins applies for insolvency agreement to avoid bankruptcy theguardian.com/media/2018/sep… - a short thread on Katie, the law, and how this all might have been avoided if she hadn’t been so trigger-happy with the block button...
You see, Katie blocked me a long, long time ago. Before all this blew up. Not because of anything I tweeted to her, but because *a lot* of people were pointing her in my direction...
Katie, as you know, is no stranger to controversy, and she had tweeted something of dubious legality, the details of which I cannot for the life of me remember. Anyhow, a few people were pointing out she was on a sticky wicket...