slander/defamation

[Deleted member 322879]

Hello
On of our station presenter was doing a show reading some tweets addressed to the station itself about the topic discussed.
While reading one of the tweets the presenter noticed that the tweet contained a sort of accusation against another user that was tweeting in the discussion.
While reading it, the presenter jumped the name accused, therefore did not mention it.

However we have received threat of legal action from this person. We have explained to him that we didn’t mention his name (we have the recording and we have double checked it). I was wondering if anyone could indicate me or what is the legislation in these cases, as we are a very small station and we are genuinely scared despite we don’t think we have done nothing wrong reading tweets that were public (with the hashtag indicated from the station) and jumping names? We only ever mentioned the name of the tweet author, never other names when involved.

 

[Newchodge]

Hello
On of our station presenter was doing a show reading some tweets addressed to the station itself about the topic discussed.
While reading one of the tweets the presenter noticed that the tweet contained a sort of accusation against another user that was tweeting in the discussion.
While reading it, the presenter jumped the name accused, therefore did not mention it.

However we have received threat of legal action from this person. We have explained to him that we didn’t mention his name (we have the recording and we have double checked it). I was wondering if anyone could indicate me or what is the legislation in these cases, as we are a very small station and we are genuinely scared despite we don’t think we have done nothing wrong reading tweets that were public (with the hashtag indicated from the station) and jumping names? We only ever mentioned the name of the tweet author, never other names when involved.

If the person is identifiable to those who know them, then they may have a case.

 

[estwig]

Ignore it, they'll calm down and move on. The worst thing you can do is engage with them, doesn't matter what you say or do, it will only fan the flames.

 

[Mr D]

If the person is identifiable to those who know them, then they may have a case.

If they are identifiable without a name then indeed too much information is given in a tweet.

 

[Deleted member 322879]

They are not identifiable.

The presenter did read the tweet . But paused and didn’t mention “XXXX” (the name).
The person mentioned had previously sent a tweet to the conversation and his tweet was read as it didn’t contain names. However between his tweet and the tweet that accused it, there’s been at least 15 minutes on air when we broadcasted 2 songs and read another tweet.

I know the tweet is clear. It’s there and the person who tweeted that is responsible for what he alleged. I was wondering what is the situation for the station, reading a tweet (publicly visible) , and omitting the name that contained allegations

 

[Deleted member 322879]

Sorry, I’m just very scared.

 

[Newchodge]

I was wondering what is the situation for the station, reading a tweet (publicly visible) , and omitting the name that contained allegations

The person who posted the tweet is liable for the content.

Your organisation re-published the tweet (with the name omitted). If the individual is identifiable (not just from the particular tweet read out but from the whole broadcast) your organisation is liable for what you broadcast.

The fact that the information was made public by someone else does not prevent you being liable if you repeat it.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

By a process of elimination, i.e., how many people would have heard it, how many people would have known who it relates to, what attempts did you make to prevent people from knowing who it was from etc., the chances are an audience of 2 men and a dog were listening and the accuser will have insufficient facts to support any sort of financially viable action.

 

[paulears]

Why not take the recording of the entire sequence of events to a solicitor and ask for their considered opinion, then get concerned (not worry) if that opinion is not what you wanted. Without us seeing the transcript of the entire thing, we're guessing, but you can't let us have it because you will be publishing it again! If you are worried - it's worth the cost of the appointment.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

You need to post what was actually said. 'People like xxxx' is markedly different from saying 'xxxx creates false profiles'.

 

[paulears]

He can’t! That would be stupid in this case.

 

[Newchodge]

You need to post what was actually said. 'There's people like xxxx' is markedly different from saying 'xxxx creates false profiles'.

No he doesn't, as has been pointed out that would be further publication!

 

[Deleted member 322879]

“
Ok Thanks

 

[Deleted member 322879]

Of course I didn’t mention the exact tweet

 

[fisicx]

If you were reading out tweets then people can view the twitter feed and see the name of the person. It's a result of your live broadcast that the person can be identified. If you hadn't broadcast then it would just be another twitter feed and subject to twitters' reporting process.

 

[The Byre]

Random points in no special order -

• You are the publisher and not the author.
• The presenter was reporting what another (the author) had stated.
• The plaintiff must be clearly identifiable. 'Magic Grandpa' doesn't wash and he smells funny." is not defamation.
• The defamation Act of 2013 states "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant." In other words, a serious and damaging accusation must have been made.
• Opinions clearly identifiable as such are not defamation. "Mr. Augustus Toadposture of 17, Oil-Drum Lane is one ugly SoB." is not defamation. "I hate Piers Morgan!" is also not defamation.
• If the defendant to the claim can prove the truth of the statement, it is not defamation.
• The case of tweets reported on the radio is (if anything) slander and not libel (health warning - just my opinion!)

One example of that last point (but to do with online statements on forums such as this one and things like Twitter) Mr Justice Eady in an early judgement that predated the new 2013 act, stated that posts on bulletin boards "are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill-thought-out...Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

As such "When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions...People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."

As 15 minutes elapsed between the two statements, a clear identification (point three) may not be possible - it will all be down to what is on your logging tapes. i.e. them pesky details again!

Here is a concrete example -
I was recently accused online of inventing my military record and history. Someone posted some nonsense about military procedure and I corrected them. The poster doubted that I knew what I was talking about, so I told him that I had served in XXX Regiment and was on active service in XXX from year XXX to year XXX. He accused me of making it up and told me that I was a fantasist.

This was NOT defamation because (1) Although many on that forum know who I am, I was not clearly identifiable. (2) No damage had occurred, as I had suffered no financial damage and no damage was done to my reputation. (3) The poster was posting in a casual manner on a forum and it could have been argued that he was expressing an informal opinion, even though he did not clearly state this.

Anyone giving you QUALIFIED and definitive advice in this matter would have to listen to the logging tapes and judge whether the potential plaintiff was identified and whether the claim would have caused him or her "serious harm to the reputation".

As this kind of rubbish gets usually transmitted in the middle of the night and just ten people and a goat are actually listening, that last point may be a difficult one to make!

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

No he doesn't, as has been pointed out that would be further publication!

Let me re-phrase my statement.

Not the whole Tweet but...............

He needs to clarify whether the Tweet said 'People like xxxx' or not?

If I posted on here. 'People like Donald Trump etc.,' most would understand that it's an opinion based on DT's track record, demeanour and method of doing/saying things.
If the Tweeter has posted 'People like xxxx', it's highly unlikely that he would have formed that opinion without there being some prior knowledge, perception......exchange of earlier Tweets.

 

[billybob99]

You are worried about absolutely nothing.

 

[The Byre]

TBH, this sounds more like something someone could possibly complain about to Ofcom. But that's about it - and I doubt they would uphold a complaint.

 

[ecommerce84]

Everyone knows it’s Ryan Giggs now anyway.

 

[BustersDogs]

Sorry bit late to the discussion, I used to work for the BBC dealing with almost exactly this scenario. I know some laws have changed since I left the Beeb, but you can't repeat defamation and say 'oh but we didn't write it, we just read someone else's comment'. If it were on a message board it's slightly different, but you read it out on air.

The person only has to be identifiable to a very few people, think the BBC lawyers said it was less than 10.

I would get proper legal advice, you must have a legal team or a company doing this for your radio station? Because the one part I know that didn't change was the person named doesn't have to prove you defamed them, you have to prove you didn't (ie if the accusation is true, it's not defamatory, or the comment really wouldn't affect the person's reputation in the minds of right thinking people).

 

[The Byre]

the one part I know that didn't change was the person named doesn't have to prove you defamed them, you have to prove you didn't (ie if the accusation is true, it's not defamatory, or the comment really wouldn't affect the person's reputation in the minds of right thinking people

This is the key bit!

That said, the BBC is known for being over-cautious and in this particular instance, the presenter did not read out the name and there were 15 minutes between the one posting and the reference back. So it's all down to the severity of the accusation made and the precise content of those logging tapes.

When I started out in publishing in 1989, sometime around the mid-90s we all had to attend legal courses on copyright, defamation and all associated topics. I would hope that small radio stations running self-op programmes where the DJ can say or do pretty much anything stupid would have an even greater need for making staff aware of the law.

 

[John Hemming]

This is another aspect to be aware of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow