Libel use to silence women

[RedToothBrush]

news.sky.com/story/ex-wifes-facebook-strangle-post-not-libellous-supreme-court-rules-11682983?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
Ex-wife's Facebook 'strangle' post not libellous, Supreme Court rules
Nicola Stocker made the remark about her ex-husband in an online exchange with his new partner.

Harriet Wistrich, of the Centre for Women's Justice, said: "We have been supporting this case and a number of others because essentially what these cases do is enable wealthy men to try to silence women through the libel laws.

There is something of a problem with social media and libel.

The main thing is that men in positions of influence or power are being litigatious in a heavy handed way to the letter of the law or on rather tenuous grounds.

Fascinating subject this one.

Amazing news, big ray of sunshine on how some men treat women. Libel is thrown around a fair bit, as is defermation, both hard to prove. Really happy with the result though

Excellent news. What a piece of work.

It is a particular issue in DV though as by its nature it happens in private without witnesses. The woman in question was "lucky" in a sense that she had physical marks which were recorded by the police.

My exH was always careful to hit me in a way which would not show and for that reason I did not mention it IRL. He is a lawyer and would love an excuse to take me to court for libel.

It’s very difficult to succeed in a libel claim these days and this kind of thing really does fall into a minority of cases most cases pertaining to public figures and publications. The oppression of women definitely isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when I think of libel.

No Gregory, but the point is it never should be.

The problem is that libel often crops up in cases with power imbalances.

In the past it was argued that the traditional media had too much power which made it impossible for individuals to challenge something. Usually because of financial constraints.

The problem with social media is while it makes everyone in effect publishers so in theory equal, you don't have much of a debate either about ethics and law nor about power imbalances.

You have situations where those with means can publish maliciously and without impunity libellous stuff, because they know their victims don't have the same means to challenge it.

And conversely you have people who actually have what would have constituted a public interest argument for a newspaper saying something truthful yet being silenced because the person who they are talking about has more money.

This means that the freedom of social media is very much unequal with some able to use its power in an almost magnified way, against those who are more vulnerable if they are malicious.

We know about how people in positions of authority, particularly women, are the targets of abuse and all manner of libellous and defamatory stuff. There is much less about how it works for ordinary women.

And its not hard to see how it's going to be a growing problem and one that in future you might associate with libel.

I was horrified by this case because it was such bullshit, so glad of this verdict today. But yes it's chilling that abusers could extend the abuse in this way.

But you can’t really prevent that without either giving public funding for libel cases or constraining libel even further leaving people with no redress when their reputation has be maliciously damaged. At any rate the only instance where it could hypothetically be used to silence a woman is when she has threatened to make a libellous statement or had made a libellous statement and plans on making more. Unless you are talking about injunction cases (which is fair enough I prefer the American approach myself) then women aren’t being silenced.

Do you understand the details of this case? Read up on it. It really is a concern.

I’m glad he was ordered to pay all legal costs.
These people have no feelings or emotions, so hit ‘em where it hurts... their pockets.

It is a concern for many women, when just knowing of the potential of being sued for libel stops us ‘risking it’ and saying something in the first place.

That’s wonderful news! I’m so glad justice has been served.

rightsinfo.org/stocker-v-stocker-is-a-victory-for-domestic-abuse-survivors/
Rights info have run a story on this today

I note the following from the article.
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled on the manner in which people write and read social media posts.

It is clear from their ruling that social media posts are not to be treated in the same way as, for example, a traditional newspaper article.

The Court was critical of the approach taken in the lower courts, which had “failed to conduct a realistic exploration of how the ordinary reader of the Facebook post would have understood it.”

In the ruling, Lord Kerr insisted that context was always key – especially when it comes to social media.

“The fact that this was a Facebook post is critical. The advent of the 21st century has brought with it a new class of reader: the social media user,” he wrote.

“The judge tasked with deciding how a Facebook post or a tweet on Twitter would be interpreted by a social media user must keep in mind the way in which such posting and tweets are made and read.”

This is a significant and reassuring development. The Supreme Court’s approach to the realities of communication in an age of social media is not entirely without its flaws, but it ought to be lauded nonetheless.

Their judgment is not only a victory for the victims and survivors of domestic abuse but a victory for freedom of speech online.

Important.

As a woman and a lawyer I was so glad to see this judgment. It's horrifying that an abuser got so far in using the courts to continue his abuse of a woman.