McAlpine claims his lawyers have the names of 10,000 Twitterati** who tweeted or retweeted about him and the paedo allegations (1,000 tweets, 9,000 RTs). The suggestion has been made, in the press, that the plebs, to avoid prosecution, make a £100 donation to a children’s charity while celebs will Continue reading
Please note: This is not, as one fruitcake on Twitter claimed last night, an argument in favour of censorship. That should be perfectly clear to anyone who takes the time to read it properly.
Twitter is not the Wild West and, sooner rather than later, the rule of law will be imposed, and that day is getting pretty close. It is, however, worth pointing out that most people on Twitter are law-abiding – not that you’d get that impression from the press.
Lord McAlpine , if we can believe newspaper reports, plans to sue Twitterati who tweeted unkindly and libellously about him last week. He also – and this is where it goes off the rails in my view, plans to sue retweeters too.
Doesn’t he first have to prove intent?
And wasn’t the name of McAlpine linked to the child abuse case, and released into the public domain, by the police? In which case, can it be a civil offence to repeat something already in the public domain when at the time its libellous nature was unknown? I don’t see how.
As for retweeting on Twitter, it means Continue reading