18 ms·

Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

200 points by iechoz6H 5y ago

echelon 5y ago
I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.
- th0ma5 5y ago
  Does this opinion have anything to do with the scandals one might be able to find with a simple google search of your username?
- duxup 5y ago
  It may be just the type of stories I happen to see. But I feel like I run into more cases where UK defamation laws have some absurd outcomes ... and I'm not sure the result is that there's less defamation in the UK.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    There's no question that the UK's speech laws are abusive, especially to American sensibilities. You can find stories of people being arrested for calling a police horse "gay", or saying "woof" to a police dog, or the guy who taught his girlfriend's dog to respond to Seig Heil to troll her, or the 19 y/o who quoted a Snoop Dogg lyric on her Instagram page, or the guy sent to _jail_ for leaving anti-religion cartoons in an airport restroom. These cases are among the ridiculous fringe, so a bunch of them were overturned or resulting solely in fines, but they're the tip of the iceberg of the more mundane gov't suppression of speech and accompanying chilling effects that the UK has decided it wants. Though that doesn't imply that defamation has no place in speech laws, nor that the case in question was necessarily abusive.
    - Marazan 5y ago
      With regards to the Nazi dog your facts are wrong. He taught the dog to respond to the phrase "Do you wanna gas the Jews"
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        > With regards to the Nazi dog your facts are wrong. He taught the dog to respond to the phrase "Do you wanna gas the Jews" No, your facts are wrong. He taught the dog to perform a nazi salute upon hearing the command Seig Heil, _and_ to bark upon hearing "gas the jews". The description of his video is only a couple of sentences long on Wikipedia.
    - rovolo 5y ago
      I don't think you're giving a great summary of these stories. The first two are related to personal defamation: * Police horse and dog: people could be arrested for "threatening, abusive or insulting" speech in public at the time. The police, being wankers, overused their discretion on "insulting" speech and so the law was changed in 2013 to remove "insulting" as a criterion. https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-may-now-call-a-police-horse-gay-in-the-u-k/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-may-now-call-a-poli... The rest fall under hate speech: * Seig Heil dog: fined £800 for hate speech for posting a video of the dog to YouTube. He said "gas the Jews" to the dog 23 times. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dog-nazi-salute-sentence-mark-meechan-video-pug-sieg-heil/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dog-nazi-salute-sentence-mark-m... * 19 y/o Snoop Dogg lyric: 8 week curfew, fined £600. She added "kill a snitch n** and rob a rich n**" to her Instagram bio. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh... * The guy repeatedly left the cartoons in airport _prayer-rooms_. "Other [images] linked Muslims to attacks on airports." 6 month suspended prison sentence (not sure about the length of the pre-trial detention), fined £250, 100hrs unpaid work (community service?). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8549613.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/854961... I don't necessarily agree with the criminalization, but these 3 instances were all people doing shitty things I don't think they should have done. Downplaying the parts people actually got angry about makes it seem like you're complaining about the people getting angry about the actions rather than the trials and punishments.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    I would call this an absurd outcome. This guy is a public figure, and it doesn't seem like anything bad actually happened to him as a result of the trolling. So how in the hell is a six-figure payout justified?
- s_dev 5y ago
  Ireland like the UK has strong defamation laws. I suspect it plays a part in concealing political corruption rather protecting an individuals right to a reputation as pointed out by EU officials a couple of times.
  - benrbray 5y ago
    I don't have a horse in this race, but playing devil's advocate: USA doesn't have strong defamation laws, and yet we still have well-concealed corruption.
    - jldugger 5y ago
      > well-concealed Are you sure about that? It seems pretty out in the open.
      - benrbray 5y ago
        We have plenty of both kinds :). "Truth" being a valid defense against defamation laws protects some whistleblowers, but for the big stuff we play the "national security" card.
        xxpor 5y ago
        When was the last time the federal government asserted national security privilege in a defamation suit?
        benrbray 5y ago
        Last I heard, Snowden is still not welcome here.
    - s_dev 5y ago
      I don't think the defamation laws are the only approach to concealing corruption -- just one way thats popular in the UK & Ireland.
  - deleted 5y ago
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  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?
  - NoboruWataya 5y ago
    I'm not sure that's true - or rather, I think it's exaggerated. First, truth is generally a defence to defamation, and costs follow the cause in the UK so a losing party would generally be required to pay both parties' costs. Now, defamation suits can still be costly and painful even if you are in the right, so they do surely have some chilling effect. But the risk and likely cost of trying to silence legitimate criticisms with frivolous defamation lawsuits is quite high. Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy headlines. If you really want to silence your critics, dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to do it.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      That has partially changed in the last 10 years. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
  - 45ure 5y ago
    >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. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their raison d'être. The strategy works, as it is doing them no harm and the growth is phenomenal. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-punk-brewery-beer-scottish-brewer-controversy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-pun... https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regrets-disaster-tv-appearance/ https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regre... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685
- 34679 5y ago
  >It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. It's also good to see precedents established for people trying to abuse the system: "Judge tosses frivolous lawsuit by heiress Sulome Anderson seeking to destroy The Grayzone" https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/29/lawsuit-sulome-anderson-hezbollah/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/29/lawsuit-sulome-anderson-h...
- akersten 5y ago
  No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case). There's a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. That's part of the deal of being famous - you have haters. I don't think anyone should have to pay out because they trolled a famous person on Twitter.
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    I'm not really sure why being famous is supposed to diminish your rights in regards to defamation, or really in regards to anything. If someone spreads falsehoods against another person in a way that damages their reputation they ought to have legal means at their disposal to set that straight. I don't really see why the US gets this right at all, it's just part of Americas culture where lies and truth are treated as equal and as a result integrity has completely vanished from public discourse. Very visible in how all politicians are treated as 'being the same', which is the logical consequence of this atmosphere of defamation which trolls abuse with impunity. If you can lie without repercussion about everyone, the public cannot distinguish reality from fiction.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation For defamation, you need four things: a false statement of fact made to a third party causing actual harm, that demonstrates at least negligence. For public figures, the "at least negligence" rises to "actual malice"; I believe the intention is to prevent public figures from abusing defamation suits. Note that "lying", saying something that you know to be false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is false, is pretty much the definition of "actual malice" in this case. You cannot lie without repercussion.
  - dangerface 5y ago
    > They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being spread about them. I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars at the expense of every one else. I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest of us, that seems deeply biased and un fair.
- dangerface 5y ago
  Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your speech to attack people and spread lies.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your speech to attack people and spread lies. Yes it does, that's exactly what it means. People disagree on what "free speech" means, on what limits can legitimately be placed on that freedom and by whom, but the implications of "absolutely free" speech are unambiguous.
    - walshemj 5y ago
      Go in the wrong pub in NI and shout up the RA (PIRA) /UDA and see what happens.
- meowface 5y ago
  I think it just has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone anonymously tweets something knowingly false along the lines of "[X] is a rapist/pedophile and I have proof", I agree you should be able to sue that person. A false, defamatory accusation like that can easily ruin your career and life. But I can imagine plenty of things that someone could argue are defamatory which fall into a much grayer area where I believe court involvement isn't warranted. I think this debate will just run in circles until all of the tweets in question are presented.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    That is an example that US defamation law would cover as well. For public figures, normally you have to demonstrate actual malice to win a defamation case. But there are certain things that are defamation per se, in other words are always considered defamation unless they're true. The list differs per state, but things like calling someone a pedophile is always on it. Fun fact: saying someone was gay used to be considered defamation per se.
    - meowface 5y ago
      Right. Maybe I'm biased because I'm American, but I think the US defamation laws seem pretty reasonable. I'm curious to see the tweets so I can see how I feel about the UK's laws and enforcement.
- logicalmonster 5y ago
  It's hard to judge this specific case from the article because it's limited in its details of what actual criticism about this person was expressed. But to me, the problem inherent in defamation (as well as "fake news") isn't that people are able to utter false statements. The real issue is that many people are conditioned to believe that whatever they see or hear is true. Somebody believing something negative is the only thing that might cause harm to another person. Why do people believe that whatever they read or hear is true? I believe it's because we have active defamation/slander laws, "fact checkers", and other things designed to combat false information. Their very existence and strength is what keeps people conditioned to believe that everything they see is true. And the stronger they get, the stronger that people believe that everything they read is true. It's a feedback loop that worsens the problem it's supposed to solve. Paradoxically, things like strong defamation laws may worsen the real problem they're ostensibly designed to solve. I strongly believe that the approach that should be taken with things like defamation isn't harsher and harsher punishment, it should be telling everybody that nothing you read online is true and having the weakest possible defamation laws (or even no laws in this regard) to get people to understand that nothing that they see or read should be considered true until they verify it. A society that understands that no facts should be considered true until they verify it would be immune from false information.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
seaish 5y ago
This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in those cases.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    Everyone does that since forever and this isn't limited to a single political affiliation or even politics at all. By now this is a standard practice and I hope this isn't news for anybody.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity. You mean harassers and bullies from hexbear AKA chapotraphouse who target radical feminists? Yes, it's leftists attacking women who disagree with them.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      I was primarily referring to Sally Albright (the example with the most publicly available evidence). She is a political mercenary who was outed as operating a large bot farm using identities of people who died. Funded by ShareBlue to attack people critical of HRC, then Biden. Arguably, she created the "donut twitter" faction - which grew past the bot accounts she controlled. Though I'm sure this tactic is used by every political leaning to some extent. I think her example is particularly egregious because she is being funded by the DNC apparatus - not just a lone wolf.
      - 5y ago
kyrra 5y ago
Reading the article is important here. The person that was being sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous. They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just paying and hiding.
- aardvarkr 5y ago
  Thanks for adding the context! I'm definitely one of those people that will read comments before the article so I appreciate it.
- tremon 5y ago
  Should have asked for a 7-figure sum, then.
  - metalliqaz 5y ago
    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
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Even if the case turns out your way, the laywer costs to fight the case in court may be large enough that settling is better for your. It doesn't matter which side of this you are on.
      - sbuk 5y ago
        Loser usually pays fees in UK litigation.
      - alasdair_ 5y ago
        It’s worth noting that in the UK the loser pays the costs (subject to various standard and maximum rates etc.)
encryptluks2 5y ago
They hurt my feelings :( must file defamation lawsuit. Just kidding, but here in the US you have harassment which is usually a criminal matter and then libel/slander. You can pretty much say whatever you want about a public figure like a politician ad long as it isn't threats, unless your AOC cause she thinks saying she has bad hair is a threat. One of the things a lot of people think from being naive is that if people are saying it online and not getting sued then it must me true, which is how some conspiracies spread.
stevebmark 5y ago
Sounds like a fairly standard defamation lawsuit. The only thing that stands out to me is the instant meme of: > This should be a warning to all trolls
- YinglingLight 5y ago
  "instant meme" is a crude way of saying, threat to freedom of speech.
- Synaesthesia 5y ago
  Defamation suits in the UK are obviously under their defamation laws which have a lot of problems with them. They're open to abuse by rich and powerful entities.
paulpauper 5y ago
Will he be able to colllect? It does send a message though.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  They settled so what issue would there be collecting? Presumably the party accepting the payment would check to make sure it was likely to be paid.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  Would it be particularly hard? In the case of Count Dankula, after he refused to pay the fine for his ridiculous wrongspeech conviction, they took it out of his bank account.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > so good luck collecting Why would you not pay something that you settled? People don't do that - because they wanted to settle to avoid the court case. If you didn't pay you'd go straight into a court case. Likely they already gave evidence of ability to pay as part of the discussions. What you're talking about is court awarded damages which doesn't apply here as that's not what we're talking about.
- throwawayForMe2 5y ago
  “Settled” might also imply that it was already paid. I’d imagine it like a house sale closing, the papers get signed and a check gets passed all in the same transaction? No check, no “settle”.
londons_explore 5y ago
Not many people have 6 figures lying around to pay... I think most regular people, faced with the offer of a 6 figure settlement, would probably fight it to the bitter end in court, before claiming bankruptcy. I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6 figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?
- fortran77 5y ago
  I get the feeling, too, he had a hunch who it was from the beginning.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  I think a _ton_ of people would come up with 6 figures if the alternative was jail time. It doesn't have to be cash in the bank -- take out debt, remortgage your house, sell your car, borrow from friends and family, etc.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    I don’t know UK law, but can a libel suit end in jail? Isn’t this civil versus criminal?
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      No it is a civil matter in the US at least.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      I believe the criminal offence of libel (defamatory libel) was abolished in 2010, not sure if there's any other
  - pc86 5y ago
    It could also simply be a legal contract for the anonymous individual to pay Nolan directly. Whatever the court settlement equivalent of seller's financing is!
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
londons_explore 5y ago
Should've used a VPN!
easterncalculus 5y ago
"Despite this attempt to destroy his reputation with falsehoods, Mr Nolan has agreed not to name this individual, dependent on his future conduct." I remember this same line from the CNN Trump WWE GIF guy - the cases are different, for one this is a legal case and it being in the UK. Here is what CNN said in that story[1]: CNN is not publishing “HanA*holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. Exactly when does this kind of behavior become blackmail? How remorseful do you have to continue to be so the corporation threatening to dox you doesn't? A lot of people will say a name alone is not doxing, but the safety concerns are real when there's potentially thousands of people that would hurt you, seeking out the rest of your details. It seems these media companies have near unlimited power to brazenly admit to this, under the excuse of supposed public interest in the identity of private citizens. The identities aren't even relevant to their respective stories. It should go without saying that defending the post content specifically is not the point, and can easily flip between political ideologies as years go by and this kind of media behavior is left unchecked. [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...
- fesoliveira 5y ago
  > The identities aren't even relevant to their respective stories. I believe that depending on the situation and the individual or individuals allegedly responsible for these defamations, their identity might be very relevant. In the UK case, it seems it was someone noteworthy and rich enough that settling the case while paying 6 figures in damage was cheaper than the PR nightmare that would come with his identity being revealed. Also, keep in mind that we live during times where cancel culture is raging very strong on social media, and people that make this claims can very easily lose their careers over stupid things they say online. I would say it is quite likely that the individuals themselves asked for anonymity in cases, and the attacked parties granted this so long as they don't repeat their behavior.
NoboruWataya 5y ago
It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.
- barbegal 5y ago
  Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    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.
    - wccrawford 5y ago
      It's also an English word that can be used for the same kind of thing without the law being involved at all.
      - GavinMcG 5y ago
        And in situations where the law isn't involved, that's great. Here, though, it is. Talking about damages being paid, as the headline does, is especially indicative of the legal context.
        warent 5y ago
        Yeah, context is key here... Damages can also mean physical bodily harm. By GP's reasoning, we could interpret the article as saying someone was medically wounded and claim that to be a correct interpretation because it's one of the many meanings depending on context.
      - 5y ago
hugoromano 5y ago
Smells bad to me. Paying 6 figures without HMRC touching it, hummm! People that engage defamation need to have a proper sentence, it can start we community service.
moksly 5y ago
> 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 resources behind you when you or your little company is targeted? I know this may be a little too Scandinavian for some HN users, but I simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them. We have laws and bureaucracies in place to govern traditional media, exactly because the two world and the Cold War showed us what propaganda is capable of, and yet, we let these new platforms do whatever they want? Maybe that would break Social Media, because their automatic moderation wouldn’t be up to the task, but so what? The way things are moving forward, the platforms claim to have upped their moderation, but as long as they aren’t actually held accountable by any democratic institution, they will still mainly be moderated by the advertising industry and that’s just not not what’s in public interest. I know Donald Trump is a touchy subject to bring up. But why was he banned when he was? Shouldn’t he either have been de-platformed long ago, or not at all? Sure was convenient for the companies to do so when they did, wasn’t it? I’m personally happy that I haven’t heard a single thing about American republicans in 2021, but I still think it’s a democratic issue that it is a select few tech-billionaires that can remove someone like Donald Trump from my life and not any form of public institution. It all goes back to the lack of moderation and the lack of consequences for these Social Media platforms. Yeah, one “ systematic dissemination campaign” was stopped because the BBC protects its journalists, but how many go unpunished?
- crazydoggers 5y ago
  You hit the nail on the head! And I’m from the US, so it’s not too Scandinavian. :) What I found interesting was the spectacle of Mark Zuckerberg in front of congress. And yet no action whatsoever has come from it. I think part of the issue is that the very people who could push for legislation (the voters) are also the unwitting products of these companies (sold to their real customers the advertisers). So the manipulation has gone so deep and been so effective the majority of people aren’t realizing what’s happening.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
opheliate 5y ago
It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter, and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.
- benjaminwootton 5y ago
  In that case, maybe the content was political rather than trolling? Settling like this is a slippery slope if you’ve said something to offend someone rather than simply libel and troll them.
  - hbosch 5y ago
    Firstly, political posting and troll posting aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, it appears that there was strong evidence that this poster actually tried to harm the presenter's reputation and career. To that extent, libel charges are fair and it's a good thing he was able to be traced and admonished.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      I don't see any details as to what the alleged "troll" said on which you are basing this. The only evidence I see is the this was settled out of fear of being doxed amd nothing indicating the strength of the legal claim of libel.
- woah 5y ago
  Wow that introduces a whole different dimension to this. That makes it sound like the "trolling" may have been a legitimate political criticism (unfounded or not), and the "troll" paid out due to a threat to their personal safety. Even darker that the threat was made by the national broadcaster of the occupying nation.
  - iso1210 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iNane9000 5y ago
The word “troll” has lost all meaning. It’s worse than “hacker”. I now reflexively disregard the people who use the term. I’m sure they’d say that anyone who disagrees must be “trolling” too. A bad word that impedes thinking.
- krapp 5y ago
  cool story bro.
  - iNane9000 5y ago
    Troll?
    - Synaesthesia 5y ago
      Yeah I assume that was a very meta troll ha
xdennis 5y ago
Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There's a big difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he's a pedophile. How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the press omits the most important part?
- yellow_lead 5y ago
  It's a warning to all trolls, they say in the article. The exact warning is undefined however.
  - didericis 5y ago
    The lack of concrete definitions and examples makes it a warning to everyone.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      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.
      - ctack 5y ago
        It seems like the agreement to pay could be read as the money being more or less extorted from the twitter troll.
- vages 5y ago
  I think that’s to avoid the Streisand effect: Trying to have information removed often brings more attention to the information you want removed.
- perihelions 5y ago
  See my sibling comment. One of the allegedly defamatory claims was "[Stephen Nolan's] show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700339
n4bz0r 5y ago
Disclaimer: I have no idea who Stephen Nolan is, and I'm not aware of the context. The reaction is based solely on the article. I get a feeling that the light is only being shed on the side of the story which makes the "victim" look like an alpha male. All this "message" and "tracing" crap. I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet. They way I see it (the way the article depicts the situation), they very well knew who could be the troll, and simply threatened the offender: > There was immediate contrition and categoric statements of regret, with the individual pleading for anonymity due to his expressed personal security concerns People usually say things like that when there is a presence of an immediate danger to their well-being. I mean, fair enough, you play with the bull you get the horns. But don't make it look like a triumph of justice accompanied with an honourable act of mercy. You just blackmailed six figures out of a person for sending texts.
- ttt0 5y ago
  > I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet. Look up Kurt Eichenwald. He found and sued an anonymous Twitter troll who send him a GIF "you deserve a seizure" in 2017. I'm not sure exactly how, I think the authorities helped him, so Twitter just might've gave them the information.
  - jimbob21 5y ago
    So for anyone else that found that completely odd, the whole story is that he sued someone who sent him a DM with a gif that purposefully triggered his epilepsy and caused him to seize. The words "you deserve a seizure" were definitely not the basis of the suit.
    - ttt0 5y ago
      Minor correction, it wasn't a DM, it was a public tweet that had him tagged. Then his wife (or him pretending to be his wife) responded to the tweet from Eichenwald's account, that he just had a seizure and that she had called the police.
perihelions 5y ago
The title isn't a reasonable one: the very prejudicial descriptor 'troll' is language from lawyers from one side of a legal dispute. The BBC isn't credibly a neutral arbiter, because the litigant is one of their presenters. This is not taking any position on the underlying dispute (which is apparently about Northern Ireland politics [0]), nor is it a criticism of or specific to the BBC. [0] This Reddit discussion (probably) isn't about the accusation that allegedly was defamatory (that's not public knowledge AFAIK), but I think illustrates the character of the dispute, between the Twitter user and the BBC presenter: >"His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the airtime. That's gone from Twitter. Does anyone have a copy?" ("His" refers to "@PastorJimberoo1, @PastorJimberoo3") https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/what_happened_to_the_pastor_jimberoo_accounts_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha... ~~~~~ [very late EDIT]: I've found one of the allegedly libelous claims. In the Irish Times, the Twitter user is reported as saying (through an attorney) >"I also set up a change.org petition against Mr Nolan, which had been based entirely on false and defamatory allegations, with the aim of undermining and damaging his professional reputation." https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/twitter-user-to-pay-six-figure-sum-over-false-allegations-about-bbc-s-stephen-nolan-1.4609050 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/twitter-user-t... There's clear evidence (from searching social media, from multiple directions: @username + 'petition', or stephan nolan + 'petition', &c.) that the referenced petition is this one, which asks the BBC to cancel Stephen Nolan's program: https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be-cancelled-by-the-bbc-for-stirring-sectarian-tensions https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be... (is this link dead for everyone or just me?) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ55418J:https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be-cancelled-by-the-bbc-for-stirring-sectarian-tensions https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ... So, one of the claims that's conceded as defamatory is (to my inference, drawn from the above): >"For example, on 3rd February 2021, the show provided a platform for an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations to threaten violence relating to the NI Protocol. This is highly irresponsible and risks inflaming tensions which could lead to violence. However this is not a unique example and the show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations." For even further confirmation: here's the BBC singling out this petition as defamatory, back in Feburary: >"THE BBC has said an online petition campaigning for the cancellation of The Stephen Nolan Show is an attempt to “smear and censor” its journalism." >"The petition, which passed 10,000 signatures over the weekend, claims the award-winning BBC Radio Ulster programme “seeks to stir sectarian tensions for ratings”." >"A statement accompanying the online campaign cites an interview broadcast on Radio Ulster on February 3 2021 with “an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations”, where it claims threats of violence were made." >"It is understood the comments relate to the interview with the chair of Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), David Campbell on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where he told Mr Nolan: "If it comes to the bit where we have to fight physically to maintain our freedoms within the UK, so be it."" https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/15/news/campaign-to-cancel-nolan-show-is-attempt-to-smear-and-censor-journalism---bbc-2220641/ https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/1...
jokoon 5y ago
Defamatory laws could be used way more often, seen how much disinformation there is out there.
ctack 5y ago
Am I crazy or could it be read that the money is being more or less extorted from the payer?
- trhway 5y ago
  according to that reddit (as originals seem to be gone) about the payer https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/what_happened_to_the_pastor_jimberoo_accounts_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha... "His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the airtime. " I suppose saying such things in North Ireland is like criticizing the Chechen President Kadyrov in Russia - you get very specific people visiting you and "explaining" to you that you have to apologize, and you do happily apologize publicly after that, very similar like the supposed "troll" did here. One can also notice how all the wording around that settlement is all about threats to any future "trolls", and with the "personal security" words present in the context the message is hardly can be made more clear.
spoonjim 5y ago
This is not your feel-good story about a Twitter abuser getting their just deserts. Stephen Nolan is a pro-UK commentator in Northern Ireland. The “troll” criticized him saying that he was presenting a biased view with biased numbers of guests. That is the “defamation” here and the reason there is a settlement here is that people involved in these issues have had a long history of turning up dead.
mehak402 5y ago
Where exactly is the line drawn between disagreement and defamation?
aaron695 5y ago
Here's what seems like a level headed twitter thread of people defending BBCs "Troll" in Feburary. You'll note, they consider a comment from another journalist calling him a provo (Provisional Irish Republican Army) being close to a serious threat of causing harm. https://twitter.com/squinteratn/status/1364596254509047815 https://twitter.com/squinteratn/status/1364596254509047815 A subthread of note on the above thread - https://twitter.com/GregoryRasputin/status/1364584189820096513 https://twitter.com/GregoryRasputin/status/13645841898200965...

200 points by iechoz6H 5y ago

I'm a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with. The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too. It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. I'm interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

th0ma5 5y ago
Does this opinion have anything to do with the scandals one might be able to find with a simple google search of your username?
duxup 5y ago
It may be just the type of stories I happen to see. But I feel like I run into more cases where UK defamation laws have some absurd outcomes ... and I'm not sure the result is that there's less defamation in the UK.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  There's no question that the UK's speech laws are abusive, especially to American sensibilities. You can find stories of people being arrested for calling a police horse "gay", or saying "woof" to a police dog, or the guy who taught his girlfriend's dog to respond to Seig Heil to troll her, or the 19 y/o who quoted a Snoop Dogg lyric on her Instagram page, or the guy sent to _jail_ for leaving anti-religion cartoons in an airport restroom. These cases are among the ridiculous fringe, so a bunch of them were overturned or resulting solely in fines, but they're the tip of the iceberg of the more mundane gov't suppression of speech and accompanying chilling effects that the UK has decided it wants. Though that doesn't imply that defamation has no place in speech laws, nor that the case in question was necessarily abusive.
  - Marazan 5y ago
    With regards to the Nazi dog your facts are wrong. He taught the dog to respond to the phrase "Do you wanna gas the Jews"
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > With regards to the Nazi dog your facts are wrong. He taught the dog to respond to the phrase "Do you wanna gas the Jews" No, your facts are wrong. He taught the dog to perform a nazi salute upon hearing the command Seig Heil, _and_ to bark upon hearing "gas the jews". The description of his video is only a couple of sentences long on Wikipedia.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    I don't think you're giving a great summary of these stories. The first two are related to personal defamation: * Police horse and dog: people could be arrested for "threatening, abusive or insulting" speech in public at the time. The police, being wankers, overused their discretion on "insulting" speech and so the law was changed in 2013 to remove "insulting" as a criterion. https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-may-now-call-a-police-horse-gay-in-the-u-k/ https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/you-may-now-call-a-poli... The rest fall under hate speech: * Seig Heil dog: fined £800 for hate speech for posting a video of the dog to YouTube. He said "gas the Jews" to the dog 23 times. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dog-nazi-salute-sentence-mark-meechan-video-pug-sieg-heil/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dog-nazi-salute-sentence-mark-m... * 19 y/o Snoop Dogg lyric: 8 week curfew, fined £600. She added "kill a snitch n** and rob a rich n**" to her Instagram bio. https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-who-posted-rap-lyrics-14543694 https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh... * The guy repeatedly left the cartoons in airport _prayer-rooms_. "Other [images] linked Muslims to attacks on airports." 6 month suspended prison sentence (not sure about the length of the pre-trial detention), fined £250, 100hrs unpaid work (community service?). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/8549613.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/854961... I don't necessarily agree with the criminalization, but these 3 instances were all people doing shitty things I don't think they should have done. Downplaying the parts people actually got angry about makes it seem like you're complaining about the people getting angry about the actions rather than the trials and punishments.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  I would call this an absurd outcome. This guy is a public figure, and it doesn't seem like anything bad actually happened to him as a result of the trolling. So how in the hell is a six-figure payout justified?
s_dev 5y ago
Ireland like the UK has strong defamation laws. I suspect it plays a part in concealing political corruption rather protecting an individuals right to a reputation as pointed out by EU officials a couple of times.
- benrbray 5y ago
  I don't have a horse in this race, but playing devil's advocate: USA doesn't have strong defamation laws, and yet we still have well-concealed corruption.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    > well-concealed Are you sure about that? It seems pretty out in the open.
    - benrbray 5y ago
      We have plenty of both kinds :). "Truth" being a valid defense against defamation laws protects some whistleblowers, but for the big stuff we play the "national security" card.
      - xxpor 5y ago
        When was the last time the federal government asserted national security privilege in a defamation suit?
        benrbray 5y ago
        Last I heard, Snowden is still not welcome here.
  - s_dev 5y ago
    I don't think the defamation laws are the only approach to concealing corruption -- just one way thats popular in the UK & Ireland.
- deleted 5y ago
AlexandrB 5y ago
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?
- NoboruWataya 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's true - or rather, I think it's exaggerated. First, truth is generally a defence to defamation, and costs follow the cause in the UK so a losing party would generally be required to pay both parties' costs. Now, defamation suits can still be costly and painful even if you are in the right, so they do surely have some chilling effect. But the risk and likely cost of trying to silence legitimate criticisms with frivolous defamation lawsuits is quite high. Second, defamation suits are public, and often make for juicy headlines. If you really want to silence your critics, dragging them into a public forum to repeat their claims in front of a load of reporters is probably not the best way to do it.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    That has partially changed in the last 10 years. https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
- 45ure 5y ago
  >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. The latest 'Gold Can' escapade is another deceptive marketing campaign, which is their raison d'être. The strategy works, as it is doing them no harm and the growth is phenomenal. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-punk-brewery-beer-scottish-brewer-controversy https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jun/10/brewdog-pun... https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regrets-disaster-tv-appearance/ https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2016/03/brewdog-boss-regre... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57650685
34679 5y ago
>It's good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil. It's also good to see precedents established for people trying to abuse the system: "Judge tosses frivolous lawsuit by heiress Sulome Anderson seeking to destroy The Grayzone" https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/29/lawsuit-sulome-anderson-hezbollah/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/06/29/lawsuit-sulome-anderson-h...
akersten 5y ago
No, the US gets this right, and this case would be thrown out promptly were it in American jurisdiction (well, presumably - I don't know the extent of the "trolling" since the article is scant on detail, but I assume it's nothing over-the-top or they would have brought it to light to support their case). There's a much higher bar to establish defamation against Public Figures in the US -- as there should be. They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. That's part of the deal of being famous - you have haters. I don't think anyone should have to pay out because they trolled a famous person on Twitter.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  I'm not really sure why being famous is supposed to diminish your rights in regards to defamation, or really in regards to anything. If someone spreads falsehoods against another person in a way that damages their reputation they ought to have legal means at their disposal to set that straight. I don't really see why the US gets this right at all, it's just part of Americas culture where lies and truth are treated as equal and as a result integrity has completely vanished from public discourse. Very visible in how all politicians are treated as 'being the same', which is the logical consequence of this atmosphere of defamation which trolls abuse with impunity. If you can lie without repercussion about everyone, the public cannot distinguish reality from fiction.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation For defamation, you need four things: a false statement of fact made to a third party causing actual harm, that demonstrates at least negligence. For public figures, the "at least negligence" rises to "actual malice"; I believe the intention is to prevent public figures from abusing defamation suits. Note that "lying", saying something that you know to be false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it is false, is pretty much the definition of "actual malice" in this case. You cannot lie without repercussion.
- dangerface 5y ago
  > They are famous, they can deal with and expect to be trolled. Citation needed I don't think any one on youtube or twitch has the resources or interest in dealing with lies being spread about them. I can't think of any legitimate reason the law should protect liars at the expense of every one else. I can't think of any legitimate reason that popular people should be subject to a different set of laws from the rest of us, that seems deeply biased and un fair.
dangerface 5y ago
Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your speech to attack people and spread lies.
- krapp 5y ago
  >Absolutely free speech doesn't mean you are free to use your speech to attack people and spread lies. Yes it does, that's exactly what it means. People disagree on what "free speech" means, on what limits can legitimately be placed on that freedom and by whom, but the implications of "absolutely free" speech are unambiguous.
  - walshemj 5y ago
    Go in the wrong pub in NI and shout up the RA (PIRA) /UDA and see what happens.
meowface 5y ago
I think it just has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If someone anonymously tweets something knowingly false along the lines of "[X] is a rapist/pedophile and I have proof", I agree you should be able to sue that person. A false, defamatory accusation like that can easily ruin your career and life. But I can imagine plenty of things that someone could argue are defamatory which fall into a much grayer area where I believe court involvement isn't warranted. I think this debate will just run in circles until all of the tweets in question are presented.
- xxpor 5y ago
  That is an example that US defamation law would cover as well. For public figures, normally you have to demonstrate actual malice to win a defamation case. But there are certain things that are defamation per se, in other words are always considered defamation unless they're true. The list differs per state, but things like calling someone a pedophile is always on it. Fun fact: saying someone was gay used to be considered defamation per se.
  - meowface 5y ago
    Right. Maybe I'm biased because I'm American, but I think the US defamation laws seem pretty reasonable. I'm curious to see the tweets so I can see how I feel about the UK's laws and enforcement.
logicalmonster 5y ago
It's hard to judge this specific case from the article because it's limited in its details of what actual criticism about this person was expressed. But to me, the problem inherent in defamation (as well as "fake news") isn't that people are able to utter false statements. The real issue is that many people are conditioned to believe that whatever they see or hear is true. Somebody believing something negative is the only thing that might cause harm to another person. Why do people believe that whatever they read or hear is true? I believe it's because we have active defamation/slander laws, "fact checkers", and other things designed to combat false information. Their very existence and strength is what keeps people conditioned to believe that everything they see is true. And the stronger they get, the stronger that people believe that everything they read is true. It's a feedback loop that worsens the problem it's supposed to solve. Paradoxically, things like strong defamation laws may worsen the real problem they're ostensibly designed to solve. I strongly believe that the approach that should be taken with things like defamation isn't harsher and harsher punishment, it should be telling everybody that nothing you read online is true and having the weakest possible defamation laws (or even no laws in this regard) to get people to understand that nothing that they see or read should be considered true until they verify it. A society that understands that no facts should be considered true until they verify it would be immune from false information.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

seaish 5y ago

This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in those cases.

cwkoss 5y ago
There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.
- ttt0 5y ago
  Everyone does that since forever and this isn't limited to a single political affiliation or even politics at all. By now this is a standard practice and I hope this isn't news for anybody.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity. You mean harassers and bullies from hexbear AKA chapotraphouse who target radical feminists? Yes, it's leftists attacking women who disagree with them.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    I was primarily referring to Sally Albright (the example with the most publicly available evidence). She is a political mercenary who was outed as operating a large bot farm using identities of people who died. Funded by ShareBlue to attack people critical of HRC, then Biden. Arguably, she created the "donut twitter" faction - which grew past the bot accounts she controlled. Though I'm sure this tactic is used by every political leaning to some extent. I think her example is particularly egregious because she is being funded by the DNC apparatus - not just a lone wolf.
    - 5y ago

kyrra 5y ago

Reading the article is important here. The person that was being sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous. They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just paying and hiding.

aardvarkr 5y ago
Thanks for adding the context! I'm definitely one of those people that will read comments before the article so I appreciate it.
tremon 5y ago
Should have asked for a 7-figure sum, then.
- metalliqaz 5y ago
  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
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Even if the case turns out your way, the laywer costs to fight the case in court may be large enough that settling is better for your. It doesn't matter which side of this you are on.
    - sbuk 5y ago
      Loser usually pays fees in UK litigation.
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      It’s worth noting that in the UK the loser pays the costs (subject to various standard and maximum rates etc.)

encryptluks2 5y ago

They hurt my feelings :( must file defamation lawsuit. Just kidding, but here in the US you have harassment which is usually a criminal matter and then libel/slander. You can pretty much say whatever you want about a public figure like a politician ad long as it isn't threats, unless your AOC cause she thinks saying she has bad hair is a threat. One of the things a lot of people think from being naive is that if people are saying it online and not getting sued then it must me true, which is how some conspiracies spread.

stevebmark 5y ago

Sounds like a fairly standard defamation lawsuit. The only thing that stands out to me is the instant meme of: > This should be a warning to all trolls

YinglingLight 5y ago
"instant meme" is a crude way of saying, threat to freedom of speech.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
Defamation suits in the UK are obviously under their defamation laws which have a lot of problems with them. They're open to abuse by rich and powerful entities.

paulpauper 5y ago

Will he be able to colllect? It does send a message though.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
They settled so what issue would there be collecting? Presumably the party accepting the payment would check to make sure it was likely to be paid.
wutbrodo 5y ago
Would it be particularly hard? In the case of Count Dankula, after he refused to pay the fine for his ridiculous wrongspeech conviction, they took it out of his bank account.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> so good luck collecting Why would you not pay something that you settled? People don't do that - because they wanted to settle to avoid the court case. If you didn't pay you'd go straight into a court case. Likely they already gave evidence of ability to pay as part of the discussions. What you're talking about is court awarded damages which doesn't apply here as that's not what we're talking about.
throwawayForMe2 5y ago
“Settled” might also imply that it was already paid. I’d imagine it like a house sale closing, the papers get signed and a check gets passed all in the same transaction? No check, no “settle”.

londons_explore 5y ago

Not many people have 6 figures lying around to pay... I think most regular people, faced with the offer of a 6 figure settlement, would probably fight it to the bitter end in court, before claiming bankruptcy. I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6 figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?

fortran77 5y ago
I get the feeling, too, he had a hunch who it was from the beginning.
bpodgursky 5y ago
I think a _ton_ of people would come up with 6 figures if the alternative was jail time. It doesn't have to be cash in the bank -- take out debt, remortgage your house, sell your car, borrow from friends and family, etc.
- azinman2 5y ago
  I don’t know UK law, but can a libel suit end in jail? Isn’t this civil versus criminal?
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    No it is a civil matter in the US at least.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    I believe the criminal offence of libel (defamatory libel) was abolished in 2010, not sure if there's any other
- pc86 5y ago
  It could also simply be a legal contract for the anonymous individual to pay Nolan directly. Whatever the court settlement equivalent of seller's financing is!
- chrisseaton 5y ago

londons_explore 5y ago

Should've used a VPN!

easterncalculus 5y ago

"Despite this attempt to destroy his reputation with falsehoods, Mr Nolan has agreed not to name this individual, dependent on his future conduct." I remember this same line from the CNN Trump WWE GIF guy - the cases are different, for one this is a legal case and it being in the UK. Here is what CNN said in that story[1]: CNN is not publishing “HanA*holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change. Exactly when does this kind of behavior become blackmail? How remorseful do you have to continue to be so the corporation threatening to dox you doesn't? A lot of people will say a name alone is not doxing, but the safety concerns are real when there's potentially thousands of people that would hurt you, seeking out the rest of your details. It seems these media companies have near unlimited power to brazenly admit to this, under the excuse of supposed public interest in the identity of private citizens. The identities aren't even relevant to their respective stories. It should go without saying that defending the post content specifically is not the point, and can easily flip between political ideologies as years go by and this kind of media behavior is left unchecked. [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...

fesoliveira 5y ago
> The identities aren't even relevant to their respective stories. I believe that depending on the situation and the individual or individuals allegedly responsible for these defamations, their identity might be very relevant. In the UK case, it seems it was someone noteworthy and rich enough that settling the case while paying 6 figures in damage was cheaper than the PR nightmare that would come with his identity being revealed. Also, keep in mind that we live during times where cancel culture is raging very strong on social media, and people that make this claims can very easily lose their careers over stupid things they say online. I would say it is quite likely that the individuals themselves asked for anonymity in cases, and the attacked parties granted this so long as they don't repeat their behavior.

NoboruWataya 5y ago

It seems misleading for the headline to talk about "damages" when the case settled. "Damages" to me suggests court-ordered compensation.

barbegal 5y ago
Most damages are settled out of court. Going to court is more expensive so lawyers on both sides try to avoid this.
- GavinMcG 5y ago
  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.
  - wccrawford 5y ago
    It's also an English word that can be used for the same kind of thing without the law being involved at all.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      And in situations where the law isn't involved, that's great. Here, though, it is. Talking about damages being paid, as the headline does, is especially indicative of the legal context.
      - warent 5y ago
        Yeah, context is key here... Damages can also mean physical bodily harm. By GP's reasoning, we could interpret the article as saying someone was medically wounded and claim that to be a correct interpretation because it's one of the many meanings depending on context.
    - 5y ago

hugoromano 5y ago

Smells bad to me. Paying 6 figures without HMRC touching it, hummm! People that engage defamation need to have a proper sentence, it can start we community service.

moksly 5y ago

> 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 resources behind you when you or your little company is targeted? I know this may be a little too Scandinavian for some HN users, but I simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them. We have laws and bureaucracies in place to govern traditional media, exactly because the two world and the Cold War showed us what propaganda is capable of, and yet, we let these new platforms do whatever they want? Maybe that would break Social Media, because their automatic moderation wouldn’t be up to the task, but so what? The way things are moving forward, the platforms claim to have upped their moderation, but as long as they aren’t actually held accountable by any democratic institution, they will still mainly be moderated by the advertising industry and that’s just not not what’s in public interest. I know Donald Trump is a touchy subject to bring up. But why was he banned when he was? Shouldn’t he either have been de-platformed long ago, or not at all? Sure was convenient for the companies to do so when they did, wasn’t it? I’m personally happy that I haven’t heard a single thing about American republicans in 2021, but I still think it’s a democratic issue that it is a select few tech-billionaires that can remove someone like Donald Trump from my life and not any form of public institution. It all goes back to the lack of moderation and the lack of consequences for these Social Media platforms. Yeah, one “ systematic dissemination campaign” was stopped because the BBC protects its journalists, but how many go unpunished?

crazydoggers 5y ago
You hit the nail on the head! And I’m from the US, so it’s not too Scandinavian. :) What I found interesting was the spectacle of Mark Zuckerberg in front of congress. And yet no action whatsoever has come from it. I think part of the issue is that the very people who could push for legislation (the voters) are also the unwitting products of these companies (sold to their real customers the advertisers). So the manipulation has gone so deep and been so effective the majority of people aren’t realizing what’s happening.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

opheliate 5y ago

It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter, and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.

benjaminwootton 5y ago
In that case, maybe the content was political rather than trolling? Settling like this is a slippery slope if you’ve said something to offend someone rather than simply libel and troll them.
- hbosch 5y ago
  Firstly, political posting and troll posting aren't mutually exclusive. Secondly, it appears that there was strong evidence that this poster actually tried to harm the presenter's reputation and career. To that extent, libel charges are fair and it's a good thing he was able to be traced and admonished.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    I don't see any details as to what the alleged "troll" said on which you are basing this. The only evidence I see is the this was settled out of fear of being doxed amd nothing indicating the strength of the legal claim of libel.
woah 5y ago
Wow that introduces a whole different dimension to this. That makes it sound like the "trolling" may have been a legitimate political criticism (unfounded or not), and the "troll" paid out due to a threat to their personal safety. Even darker that the threat was made by the national broadcaster of the occupying nation.
- iso1210 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

iNane9000 5y ago

The word “troll” has lost all meaning. It’s worse than “hacker”. I now reflexively disregard the people who use the term. I’m sure they’d say that anyone who disagrees must be “trolling” too. A bad word that impedes thinking.

krapp 5y ago
cool story bro.
- iNane9000 5y ago
  Troll?
  - Synaesthesia 5y ago
    Yeah I assume that was a very meta troll ha

xdennis 5y ago

Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There's a big difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he's a pedophile. How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the press omits the most important part?

yellow_lead 5y ago
It's a warning to all trolls, they say in the article. The exact warning is undefined however.
- didericis 5y ago
  The lack of concrete definitions and examples makes it a warning to everyone.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    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.
    - ctack 5y ago
      It seems like the agreement to pay could be read as the money being more or less extorted from the twitter troll.
vages 5y ago
I think that’s to avoid the Streisand effect: Trying to have information removed often brings more attention to the information you want removed.
perihelions 5y ago
See my sibling comment. One of the allegedly defamatory claims was "[Stephen Nolan's] show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700339 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27700339

n4bz0r 5y ago

Disclaimer: I have no idea who Stephen Nolan is, and I'm not aware of the context. The reaction is based solely on the article. I get a feeling that the light is only being shed on the side of the story which makes the "victim" look like an alpha male. All this "message" and "tracing" crap. I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet. They way I see it (the way the article depicts the situation), they very well knew who could be the troll, and simply threatened the offender: > There was immediate contrition and categoric statements of regret, with the individual pleading for anonymity due to his expressed personal security concerns People usually say things like that when there is a presence of an immediate danger to their well-being. I mean, fair enough, you play with the bull you get the horns. But don't make it look like a triumph of justice accompanied with an honourable act of mercy. You just blackmailed six figures out of a person for sending texts.

ttt0 5y ago
> I wonder how this "troll" was "traced". Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don't just "trace" people on the internet. Look up Kurt Eichenwald. He found and sued an anonymous Twitter troll who send him a GIF "you deserve a seizure" in 2017. I'm not sure exactly how, I think the authorities helped him, so Twitter just might've gave them the information.
- jimbob21 5y ago
  So for anyone else that found that completely odd, the whole story is that he sued someone who sent him a DM with a gif that purposefully triggered his epilepsy and caused him to seize. The words "you deserve a seizure" were definitely not the basis of the suit.
  - ttt0 5y ago
    Minor correction, it wasn't a DM, it was a public tweet that had him tagged. Then his wife (or him pretending to be his wife) responded to the tweet from Eichenwald's account, that he just had a seizure and that she had called the police.

perihelions 5y ago

The title isn't a reasonable one: the very prejudicial descriptor 'troll' is language from lawyers from one side of a legal dispute. The BBC isn't credibly a neutral arbiter, because the litigant is one of their presenters. This is not taking any position on the underlying dispute (which is apparently about Northern Ireland politics [0]), nor is it a criticism of or specific to the BBC. [0] This Reddit discussion (probably) isn't about the accusation that allegedly was defamatory (that's not public knowledge AFAIK), but I think illustrates the character of the dispute, between the Twitter user and the BBC presenter: >"His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the airtime. That's gone from Twitter. Does anyone have a copy?" ("His" refers to "@PastorJimberoo1, @PastorJimberoo3") https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/what_happened_to_the_pastor_jimberoo_accounts_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha... ~~~~~ [very late EDIT]: I've found one of the allegedly libelous claims. In the Irish Times, the Twitter user is reported as saying (through an attorney) >"I also set up a change.org petition against Mr Nolan, which had been based entirely on false and defamatory allegations, with the aim of undermining and damaging his professional reputation." https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/twitter-user-to-pay-six-figure-sum-over-false-allegations-about-bbc-s-stephen-nolan-1.4609050 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/twitter-user-t... There's clear evidence (from searching social media, from multiple directions: @username + 'petition', or stephan nolan + 'petition', &c.) that the referenced petition is this one, which asks the BBC to cancel Stephen Nolan's program: https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be-cancelled-by-the-bbc-for-stirring-sectarian-tensions https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be... (is this link dead for everyone or just me?) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ55418J:https://www.change.org/p/bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be-cancelled-by-the-bbc-for-stirring-sectarian-tensions https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ... So, one of the claims that's conceded as defamatory is (to my inference, drawn from the above): >"For example, on 3rd February 2021, the show provided a platform for an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations to threaten violence relating to the NI Protocol. This is highly irresponsible and risks inflaming tensions which could lead to violence. However this is not a unique example and the show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations." For even further confirmation: here's the BBC singling out this petition as defamatory, back in Feburary: >"THE BBC has said an online petition campaigning for the cancellation of The Stephen Nolan Show is an attempt to “smear and censor” its journalism." >"The petition, which passed 10,000 signatures over the weekend, claims the award-winning BBC Radio Ulster programme “seeks to stir sectarian tensions for ratings”." >"A statement accompanying the online campaign cites an interview broadcast on Radio Ulster on February 3 2021 with “an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations”, where it claims threats of violence were made." >"It is understood the comments relate to the interview with the chair of Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), David Campbell on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where he told Mr Nolan: "If it comes to the bit where we have to fight physically to maintain our freedoms within the UK, so be it."" https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/15/news/campaign-to-cancel-nolan-show-is-attempt-to-smear-and-censor-journalism---bbc-2220641/ https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/02/1...

jokoon 5y ago

Defamatory laws could be used way more often, seen how much disinformation there is out there.

ctack 5y ago

Am I crazy or could it be read that the money is being more or less extorted from the payer?

trhway 5y ago
according to that reddit (as originals seem to be gone) about the payer https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/what_happened_to_the_pastor_jimberoo_accounts_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/nmzp90/wha... "His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the airtime. " I suppose saying such things in North Ireland is like criticizing the Chechen President Kadyrov in Russia - you get very specific people visiting you and "explaining" to you that you have to apologize, and you do happily apologize publicly after that, very similar like the supposed "troll" did here. One can also notice how all the wording around that settlement is all about threats to any future "trolls", and with the "personal security" words present in the context the message is hardly can be made more clear.

spoonjim 5y ago

This is not your feel-good story about a Twitter abuser getting their just deserts. Stephen Nolan is a pro-UK commentator in Northern Ireland. The “troll” criticized him saying that he was presenting a biased view with biased numbers of guests. That is the “defamation” here and the reason there is a settlement here is that people involved in these issues have had a long history of turning up dead.

mehak402 5y ago

Where exactly is the line drawn between disagreement and defamation?

aaron695 5y ago

Here's what seems like a level headed twitter thread of people defending BBCs "Troll" in Feburary. You'll note, they consider a comment from another journalist calling him a provo (Provisional Irish Republican Army) being close to a serious threat of causing harm. https://twitter.com/squinteratn/status/1364596254509047815 https://twitter.com/squinteratn/status/1364596254509047815 A subthread of note on the above thread - https://twitter.com/GregoryRasputin/status/1364584189820096513 https://twitter.com/GregoryRasputin/status/13645841898200965...