Lesson for tweeters from important judgment in Riley v Murray: don’t share your damaging take on a tweet without including a screen shot. My THREAD on the judgment 1/
I am not a libel lawyer. This thread is not legal advice. I am just someone who says really critical things and does not like to be sued for libel. (And hasn’t been.) 2/
Murray tweeted her take on what Riley meant in her tweet, without QT or screenshot. 3/
Judge decided Murray’s tweet included a statement of *fact* about what Riley had tweeted, not just Murray’s *opinion* 4/
Some people understood Riley’s tweet the way Murray called it. Others read it as calling Owen Jones a hypocrite. But… 5/
… by tweeting without showing Riley’s tweet, Murray left out the info for readers to see the range of meanings. Murray couldn’t justify her *unambiguous* claim about Riley’s tweet as true. 6/
For the same reasons, Murray could not defend her statement of her opinion as based on stated facts that are true. Her factual statement was too unequivocal to be true *enough* to form a defence for her stated opinion. 7/
This didn’t mean Murray was a liar. The judge accepted she honestly believed in her interpretation of Riley’s tweet. But it wasn’t the justified *single* meaning of Riley’s tweet - the interpretation Murray’s tweet stated - to give a defence to defamation. 8/
Key lesson from Riley v Murray - if you say something damaging, show readers your working.
Do not assume your tweet will be understood based on anything not in your tweet.
Murray lost because she made it so readers had to find Riley’s tweet to see ambiguity. 9/
You don’t have to RT. You can screenshot the tweet/s that you’re talking about.
You don’t have to imply it has only one meaning. You can say “I think some people will understand this as saying” 10/
Screenshotting doesn’t guarantee a defence, of course. But it helps show that your tweet is your own interpretation of a tweet, and not a claim that it has a unique interpretation. 11/
If you’re thinking of tweeting something damaging about someone:
Stop.
Go to a different mode.
Here are some ideas for a structured approach. 12/12
British court uses British Human Rights Act to interpret British Nationality Act to allow British Home Sec to grant British citizenship to Windrush victims.
Opposed by Home Sec - who didn’t even want the *power* to make them citizens.+
Home Office illegally refused them re-entry to UK, because they had been legally resident here so long Home Office didn’t realise they were legally resident. +
Then Home Office said it couldn’t naturalise them as British citizens because of the law saying they must have been resident on the day 5 years before the citizenship application. +
did national media publish this sort of legal falseness before Brexit? We can discuss what s.73 *means* but you only have to read it to see it does not “state”this.
Or is it just a feature of the Spectator becoming a blog?
I say “falseness” deliberately. It’s fine for lawyers to argue that provisions don’t mean what they say, or mean more than they say. But that isn’t the claim here. And the piece is by a lawyer, about the law. It’s not a passing comment.
But does Section 73 *mean* that Covid Regs don’t apply on Gov land? (Courts seem to behave as if they do.)
Why would a local authority’s agreement be needed to for Ministers to apply their own Regs to the land they control?
Some of you are reading Adam’s thread as if he’s said stripping citizenship is good, or should (politically / morally) be allowed. His thread doesn’t say that. Its a thread about what *law* says and (surprise!) law (made by states) isn’t that great.
But I haven’t discussed this with him, or read everything he’s written. So I don’t know if I agree with him. But what he says *in this thread* *abt human rights law* is correct.
And IMHO it’s useful for people to have that info
International human rights law instruments do not state an absolute bar on citizenship-stripping. They require it not be arbitrary and they (therefore) require due process.
I want to learn from activists in Hungary, Italy, Greece, Poland what comes next from UK Govt as they scrabble for more distraction from corruption, and step up punishment of the powerless and their allies. And how we can get resist. +
Even when populist corruption doesn’t consciously model itself on another country’s, its *nature* makes it follow similar paths. And we can borrow ideas (even if we can’t borrow situations ht @billybragg ) +
in Italy, Salvini and his allies used criminal law against those rescuing drowning people - those prosecutions aren’t over. In Greece, refugees serve decade long sentences for trying to steer a dinghy with their own children to safety. What’s next for Patel there? +
Lie 1: Immigration Act 1971 makes it “illegal to come to the UK without permission”
Straight up lie. There’s nothing in that Act which says that. Migration Watch don’t even point to a section that does. +
Lie 2: Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004 makes it illegal to seek asylum without identity documentation. Of course it doesn’t. Section 3(4) (c) makes it a defence to have a reasonable excuse for not having one +