To wonder why some people are fair game to talk about on here but clearly others aren’t.

[Quietlyloud]

Basically that. Why can we talk about some people in the public eye but others we can’t because the threads are deleted pretty bloody quick. I don’t get it? Surely if you put yourself out there people will talk about you, why is it okay (in MNHQ opinion) to talk about some people but quite clearly not others, it’s almost like HQ has some special protection for them, I don’t get it.

Can we just have a list of who we can and can’t discuss on here, would be much easier.

I guess certain topics are just not up for discussion on here as they generally get pulled anyway!

Some people are litigious and MN can do without the hassle and expense.

I assume some people's legal teams have been in touch before. I didn't think it even a secret!

Some people in the public eye are notoriously litigious and I daresay MNHQ doesn't want them talked about on here for fear of a writ landing on the MNHQ doormat.

You know what, all good points didn’t even think of it from that point of view. I’m confused though, if it’s about legal issues or being sued etc then why can these people be spoken about elsewhere? It doesn’t add up. Maybe because in general HQ annoys me these days this is something that gets to me more than it should.

Is the elsewhere a for profit business?

It’s not about who can and can’t be talked about, it’s about the tone of the talking. When it comes to certain people (Jack Monroe / Mrs Hinch etc) the threads virtually instantly descend into vitriol and cruelty which is way beyond a fair public discussion. For others, the tone seems to stay more reasonable.

I think you could post about any person you liked and the thread would stay if the tone of the thread was fair, but that’s very rarely the case with some public figures.

OP YABU only because this is going to attract that user who keeps making annoying threads on how having opinions on influencers should be against the law.

I’m confused though, if it’s about legal issues or being sued etc then why can these people be spoken about elsewhere? It doesn’t add up
Our libel laws are different from the USA.
Most social media based in the USA ignore any UK law.
MN has a UK business so has to watch out for UK laws.

@CitizenFame

OP YABU only because this is going to attract that user who keeps making annoying threads on how having opinions on influencers should be against the law.

Sadly there seems to be no shortage of people who think everyone should only ever say/do/post nice kind things and anything else should be illegal. They haven’t thought it through.

OP YABU only because this is going to attract that user who keeps making annoying threads on how having opinions on influencers should be against the law.

Wow, I wasn’t aware of that user. I wonder what their reasoning is? Surely and influencer is choosing to be public and taking about them is probably the idea, opinions are just that, they aren’t fact and shouldn’t be stopped from being said. But that’s just my opinion lol

This is one of my favourite topics at the moment! OP thanks for starting this thread. I can't get enough of hearing what people think of all this since the #BeKind thing has been around.

I assumed the answer tk your question is just because some people are more litigious than others.

There was the Pink News guy last week who posted some tweets about surrogacy and both threads were taken down. He made a huge fuss about it and used very dramatic language to characterise the thread.

I've already posted this on a similar thread but there was a doc on BBC Radio 4 last night from Sali Hughes about this subject. She was talking about Tattle which exists to talk about people in the public eye.

It would be rubbish to be talked about in unflattering terms but I don't think that makes it wrong. And I don't know if it can be considered bullying when the power dynamic is so pronounced, ie one person has a huge platform and the people commenting have no platform.

You can’t talk about the Radfords

Gina Ford
MITMOO

Tattle’s domain appears to have been registered in the US so they are another one who won’t be worried about libel laws.
The US constitutional right to free speech means they are allowed to say stuff that we can’t for fear of libel.

BTW I think the US has the balance better. Here no-one dared talk about Jimmy Saville or Robert Maxwell. And Elton John sued the Sun for saying he was gay!

@MrsShelton what is MITMOO?

I suppose there are consequences for talking about some people and not for others. Who cares really, if you want to chat about someone there will always be somewhere on the internet which allows it.

@DynamoKev I agree with you. In almost all situations it seems like being open is the best option. Probably better for celebrities too as it generates more buzz.

I thought the poster wittering on about influencers particularly Mrs H was probably one of her marketing team - la Hinch has a new book out so whipping up a bit of hysteria could be seen as a marketing tool.

I always assumed that part of the reason (besides the potential legal ramifications) is that mumsnet isn’t solely a public forum. There’s more to the website, it’s a for profit business. There needs to be a certain appearance of professionalism to make that work. The companies that do sponsored content etc with site, are possibly less likely to do so if the forums are an anything goes free for all.

@DynamoKev Elton John sued The Sun for claiming he had sex with 'rent boys'. The claim was proven to be untrue. That would also be libellous in the US.

@MrsShelton

You can’t talk about the Radfords

Gina Ford
MITMOO

Now you’ve done it. Even HQ aren’t allowed to talk about Mitmoo.

Obviously, one cannot refer to, far less discuss, the laughable Markles.

[quote ChaChaCha2012]@DynamoKev Elton John sued The Sun for claiming he had sex with 'rent boys'. The claim was proven to be untrue. That would also be libellous in the US.[/quote]
I am sorry you are absolutely correct, my memory of that was faulty.

If you are expressing an opinion it's not libel, and if it's true, it's not libel.

And even if it is libel, the person has to show that they've suffered serious harm which is a very high bar to meet. Defamation laws in the UK aren't particularly restrictive to social media users, but it's not surprising that MNHQ and others don't want the hassle of having to instruct lawyers to send a "bog off we didn't defame you" or "yes we defamed you but you've not suffered any harm" letter.