To applaud Justine MN

[cerseissword]

for her put down to LJ printed in today's DM www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2587124/LIZ-JONES-If-trolls-joy-I-wake-scared-day.html

Yay, she's so great and clever. I have such a crush on the head girl, go Justine!

oh wait, I am 39 and this is an internet forum.

2) Person X accusing Person Y of something, followed by Person Y making that accusation public. Then other people discussing that now public accusation.

Person Y put that accusation into the public domain. So as long as people simply discuss the fact there was an accusation - and not repeat the information as fact they would be okay?

A lot of people think this, Chronicle, but discussing an allegation puts you on very risky territory. If you were to write, "Person Y has claimed that person X is a wife-beater", then you are running a real risk of being liable for repeat libel. Even though all you think you are doing is reporting on what someone else has said.

You don't even have to repeat the allegation explicitly to land yourself in hot water, see the Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow case here

But, if the "victim" repeats or brings up the libel, even after it's been corrected or withdrawn by the person who made it, are they not effectively repeating the libel?

As long as a discussion purely references the act that the "victim" has mentioned against her is that not discussing a claim made in the media rather than repeat libel?

Why is she making a big thing about MN and not about her friend who posted the allegations?

Is it because that wouldn't make such a good (allegedly) column?

It's an interesting question, HoneyDragon. I'm not a lawyer, so can't give you a definitive legal answer. I can't see, however, how a libel "victim" could be held liable for repeating an allegation about themselves: who would sue? They'd have to sue themselves.

But even if someone publicly discusses an allegation made against them, I am not sure that would let anyone else off the hook if they were to repeat the allegation on the web. The aim if defamation law is to stop unfounded rumours from spreading, hence the tort of repeat libel.

I just wanted to raise the subject, because a lot of people are unaware that if they post something on the internet, they will be bound by the same law as someone writing in a newspaper or saying something in a TV/ radio broadcast.

LJ has some kind of grudge against MN...She spoke at blog fest a few years back then the next day wrote a column about how much she hated MN Bloggers. No wonder Justine is losing patience with her. If you break down the libel story it really has little to do with here....It was just the place one of her "friends" (charming bunch) chose to mouth off.

She thinks Mumsnetters think she's a pathetic joke of a woman who's inane ramblings in a sexist, homophobic, scaremongering paper embarrass all humanity.

And on the whole Mumsnetter do think she's a pathetic joke of a woman who's inane ramblings in a sexist, homophobic, scaremongering paper embarrass all humanity.

WEll everyone has to be right occasionally, Tiggy! Allegedly.

I have no idea who the woman is and after reading that article I'm quite glad!

Why on earth is she popular? Surely because people like to laugh at her?!

Does this mean we can't talk about GC's different beards anymore?

God I just want to bang all their heads together.Had more than enough of this column bickering and tweeting from 'celebrities' and journos. I get enough of it at home.

I think that mumsnet should put warnings clearly visible on the site. Warning people that if they repeat, link, or copy and paste rumours which later turn out to be untrue, they are in danger of being sued.

Or maybe they could treat us like adults who are responsible for our own actions.

So true Retropear - Justine has made herself look very undignified with all this and it does detract from the site. However on a cynical level it does seem to be the way they want the site to go - spats with D listers and Celeb-O-Gobs (Louise Mensch) are very good as regards attracting D list advertisers like ASDA (all over Local) and some suchness.

Oh. That makes sense.
They do seem to have had a quite massive change of direction. Sort of gone like everyone else - down the self promotion route.
Sort of makes it all like a marketing game.
Alll about revenue and number of hits.
Like everyone else.

They should still put warnings. Only fair.

Yes and they are STILL wittering on about #penisbeaker

Who? mumsnet?
I dont go on twitter or facebook or any groups like that to know.

Sounds like a definite shift then.

I don't see warnings going up on other sites. It's abit patronising and will take the fun out of it.

Wonder who the three people were who took Jones to court and won? I'm just nosy (need to get out more)

Sophie Dahl was def one

Justine knows who the MNer is through her login, which has an email address that would get back to the RL poster, of course.

Not necessarily, surely. I could set up an email address that's "[email protected]". Guess what, my name's not Mickeymouse.

The poster in question actually outed herself Icimoi - on the thread, she linked to her own twitter account on which she'd put the photo of LJ. It was before we could post pics directly on threads.