First Twitter libel costs singer Courtney Love £260,000

Sandi wrote:First Twitter libel costs singer Courtney Love £260,000
By DANIEL BATES
Last updated at 9:57 AM on 7th March 2011
Comments (1)
Add to My Stories

Twitter rant: Courtney Love settled out of court for the first ever Twitter libel

Courtney Love has paid out more than £264,000 to settle the world’s first Twitter libel lawsuit.

The U.S. singer gave fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir $430,000 out of court rather than risk going to trial over the tweets which accused her of theft and being a criminal.

The huge sum was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the allegations, Miss Simorangkir’s lawyer said.

Even though the case did not end up going to trial, it has set a disturbing precedent in the U.S., where freedom of speech generally trumps accusations of libel.

Legal experts have said that Twitter users – including celebrities – have already begun censoring themselves for fear of being sued. They also warned it is only a matter of time before a similar ruling is made in Britain on behalf of ‘libel tourists’ from abroad taking advantage of our draconian laws.

Miss Simorangkir sued Miss Love, 46, in March 2009 over a series of postings on her Twitter and Myspace blog.

The pair had met the previous year to work on some custom clothing but their friendship soured.

Under her former Twitter account courtneylover79, the singer posted a string of defamatory comments about the designer, according to legal papers.

Miss Love, the widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, argued that her rantings were merely an opinion and that Miss Simorangkir could not prove how they damaged her.

Too far: The first 'Twibel' will take place in the UK later this year - striking fear into those who use the social network

But the designer claimed Miss Love was influential as an entertainer and noted the power of social media to disseminate damaging comments.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial in Los Angeles.

‘The amount of the settlement says it all,’ Miss Simorangkir’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said. ‘Her reprehensible defamatory comments were completely false and $430,000 is quite a significant way to say I am sorry.

‘One would hope that, given this disaster, restraint of pen, tongue and tweet would guide Miss Love’s future conduct.’

Fears that Britain will become the destination of choice for similar claims appear to be confirmed by the first ‘Twibel’ hearing in the UK, which will take place later this year.

It has been brought by former New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns against ex-Indian Premier League commissioner Lalit Modi, neither of whom lives in Britain.

Cairns claims that a Twitter message posted by Modi accusing him of match-fixing was libellous and, after a High Court ruling, the case will go ahead.

In his decision, Justice Tugendhat said that the number of people who saw the message was only one of a number of considerations in a defamation case.

The ruling has prompted freedom of expression groups to warn that the law is being used to ‘stifle online communication through unsuited legislation’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1363207/Courtney-Love-First-Twitter-libel-costs-singer-260-000.html#ixzz1Fv2C2FX4

lifeisforliving wrote:

Sandi wrote:First Twitter libel costs singer Courtney Love £260,000
By DANIEL BATES
Last updated at 9:57 AM on 7th March 2011
Comments (1)
Add to My Stories

Twitter rant: Courtney Love settled out of court for the first ever Twitter libel

Courtney Love has paid out more than £264,000 to settle the world’s first Twitter libel lawsuit.

The U.S. singer gave fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir $430,000 out of court rather than risk going to trial over the tweets which accused her of theft and being a criminal.

The huge sum was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the allegations, Miss Simorangkir’s lawyer said.

Even though the case did not end up going to trial, it has set a disturbing precedent in the U.S., where freedom of speech generally trumps accusations of libel.

Legal experts have said that Twitter users – including celebrities – have already begun censoring themselves for fear of being sued. They also warned it is only a matter of time before a similar ruling is made in Britain on behalf of ‘libel tourists’ from abroad taking advantage of our draconian laws.

Miss Simorangkir sued Miss Love, 46, in March 2009 over a series of postings on her Twitter and Myspace blog.

The pair had met the previous year to work on some custom clothing but their friendship soured.

Under her former Twitter account courtneylover79, the singer posted a string of defamatory comments about the designer, according to legal papers.

Miss Love, the widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, argued that her rantings were merely an opinion and that Miss Simorangkir could not prove how they damaged her.

Too far: The first 'Twibel' will take place in the UK later this year - striking fear into those who use the social network

But the designer claimed Miss Love was influential as an entertainer and noted the power of social media to disseminate damaging comments.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial in Los Angeles.

‘The amount of the settlement says it all,’ Miss Simorangkir’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said. ‘Her reprehensible defamatory comments were completely false and $430,000 is quite a significant way to say I am sorry.

‘One would hope that, given this disaster, restraint of pen, tongue and tweet would guide Miss Love’s future conduct.’

Fears that Britain will become the destination of choice for similar claims appear to be confirmed by the first ‘Twibel’ hearing in the UK, which will take place later this year.

It has been brought by former New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns against ex-Indian Premier League commissioner Lalit Modi, neither of whom lives in Britain.

Cairns claims that a Twitter message posted by Modi accusing him of match-fixing was libellous and, after a High Court ruling, the case will go ahead.

In his decision, Justice Tugendhat said that the number of people who saw the message was only one of a number of considerations in a defamation case.

The ruling has prompted freedom of expression groups to warn that the law is being used to ‘stifle online communication through unsuited legislation’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1363207/Courtney-Love-First-Twitter-libel-costs-singer-260-000.html#ixzz1Fv2C2FX4

Great news. People should not be allowed to lie about others without some kind of comeuppance.

I wonder if she settled out of court because it would have just been to expensive to lose after it went through the courts. It cost an arm and a leg to sue anyone in the US or in the UK. The lawyers charge the earth.

AnnaEsse wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

Sandi wrote:First Twitter libel costs singer Courtney Love £260,000
By DANIEL BATES
Last updated at 9:57 AM on 7th March 2011
Comments (1)
Add to My Stories

Twitter rant: Courtney Love settled out of court for the first ever Twitter libel

Courtney Love has paid out more than £264,000 to settle the world’s first Twitter libel lawsuit.

The U.S. singer gave fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir $430,000 out of court rather than risk going to trial over the tweets which accused her of theft and being a criminal.

The huge sum was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the allegations, Miss Simorangkir’s lawyer said.

Even though the case did not end up going to trial, it has set a disturbing precedent in the U.S., where freedom of speech generally trumps accusations of libel.

Legal experts have said that Twitter users – including celebrities – have already begun censoring themselves for fear of being sued. They also warned it is only a matter of time before a similar ruling is made in Britain on behalf of ‘libel tourists’ from abroad taking advantage of our draconian laws.

Miss Simorangkir sued Miss Love, 46, in March 2009 over a series of postings on her Twitter and Myspace blog.

The pair had met the previous year to work on some custom clothing but their friendship soured.

Under her former Twitter account courtneylover79, the singer posted a string of defamatory comments about the designer, according to legal papers.

Miss Love, the widow of Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain, argued that her rantings were merely an opinion and that Miss Simorangkir could not prove how they damaged her.

Too far: The first 'Twibel' will take place in the UK later this year - striking fear into those who use the social network

But the designer claimed Miss Love was influential as an entertainer and noted the power of social media to disseminate damaging comments.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial in Los Angeles.

‘The amount of the settlement says it all,’ Miss Simorangkir’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said. ‘Her reprehensible defamatory comments were completely false and $430,000 is quite a significant way to say I am sorry.

‘One would hope that, given this disaster, restraint of pen, tongue and tweet would guide Miss Love’s future conduct.’

Fears that Britain will become the destination of choice for similar claims appear to be confirmed by the first ‘Twibel’ hearing in the UK, which will take place later this year.

It has been brought by former New Zealand cricketer Chris Cairns against ex-Indian Premier League commissioner Lalit Modi, neither of whom lives in Britain.

Cairns claims that a Twitter message posted by Modi accusing him of match-fixing was libellous and, after a High Court ruling, the case will go ahead.

In his decision, Justice Tugendhat said that the number of people who saw the message was only one of a number of considerations in a defamation case.

The ruling has prompted freedom of expression groups to warn that the law is being used to ‘stifle online communication through unsuited legislation’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1363207/Courtney-Love-First-Twitter-libel-costs-singer-260-000.html#ixzz1Fv2C2FX4

Great news. People should not be allowed to lie about others without some kind of comeuppance.

I wonder if she settled out of court because it would have just been to expensive to lose after it went through the courts. It cost an arm and a leg to sue anyone in the US or in the UK. The lawyers charge the earth.

We should also be very careful about what we label as lies. In this case, the comments may have been made by someone who believed them and so cannot be called lies. The case did not go to court and settling out of court is not an absolute admission of lying.

lifeisforliving wrote:

If I post on Twitter that "Lord Jimmy Whistle of Podlington is a paedophile and I keep repeating it because I am 100% convinced it is true because my wee bairn has told me all about him and I have seen pictures of him but my wee bairn has told me a lie and the pictures were photoshopped then surely I have effectively lied and most certainly libeled him.

kitti wrote:Margaret, you know theirs no such things as pedophiles, it's true cos Pedro the fluffy towel man told me so!

kitti wrote:Margaret, you know theirs no such things as pedophiles, it's true cos Pedro the fluffy towel man told me so!

Sandi wrote:Lifeisforliving there is an excellent blog piece on this blog

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/07/avoiding-contempt-of-court-tips-for-bloggers-and-tweeters/

in relation to this court ruling

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/418.html

lifeisforliving wrote:

Sandi wrote:Lifeisforliving there is an excellent blog piece on this blog

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/07/avoiding-contempt-of-court-tips-for-bloggers-and-tweeters/

in relation to this court ruling

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/418.html

I missed this because of the off topic posts that got posted afterwards.

It is a fascinating article.

A timely reminder that all our postings on commercial sites, forums, blogs, twitter etc. can be the subject of contempt of court rulings as well as libel. So particularly with open cases this could be important to remember.

I do wonder sometimes what would happen if any case came to trial in the UK concerning the McCanns or anyone even remotely connected to them.

I suspect it could cause the biggest legal headache ever with the online chatter it would generate.

Is there any possibility I wonder that any case in Portugal could be affected by internet forums or blogs?

I wonder whether the lawyers would make a major issue of the fact that so much has been said online. I know the system is different there and that often no juries are used but I wonder has there ever been any concern over any cases in PT or other countries with similar legal systems about the way the internet could affect trials? Or is this just a problem in the UK and USA?

lifeisforliving wrote:

Sandi wrote:Lifeisforliving there is an excellent blog piece on this blog

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/07/avoiding-contempt-of-court-tips-for-bloggers-and-tweeters/

in relation to this court ruling

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/418.html

I missed this because of the off topic posts that got posted afterwards.

It is a fascinating article.

A timely reminder that all our postings on commercial sites, forums, blogs, twitter etc. can be the subject of contempt of court rulings as well as libel. So particularly with open cases this could be important to remember.

I do wonder sometimes what would happen if any case came to trial in the UK concerning the McCanns or anyone even remotely connected to them.

I suspect it could cause the biggest legal headache ever with the online chatter it would generate.

Is there any possibility I wonder that any case in Portugal could be affected by internet forums or blogs?

I wonder whether the lawyers would make a major issue of the fact that so much has been said online. I know the system is different there and that often no juries are used but I wonder has there ever been any concern over any cases in PT or other countries with similar legal systems about the way the internet could affect trials? Or is this just a problem in the UK and USA?

Claudia79 wrote:

lifeisforliving wrote:

Sandi wrote:Lifeisforliving there is an excellent blog piece on this blog

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/07/avoiding-contempt-of-court-tips-for-bloggers-and-tweeters/

in relation to this court ruling

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/418.html

I missed this because of the off topic posts that got posted afterwards.

It is a fascinating article.

A timely reminder that all our postings on commercial sites, forums, blogs, twitter etc. can be the subject of contempt of court rulings as well as libel. So particularly with open cases this could be important to remember.

I do wonder sometimes what would happen if any case came to trial in the UK concerning the McCanns or anyone even remotely connected to them.

I suspect it could cause the biggest legal headache ever with the online chatter it would generate.

Is there any possibility I wonder that any case in Portugal could be affected by internet forums or blogs?

I wonder whether the lawyers would make a major issue of the fact that so much has been said online. I know the system is different there and that often no juries are used but I wonder has there ever been any concern over any cases in PT or other countries with similar legal systems about the way the internet could affect trials? Or is this just a problem in the UK and USA?

Nope.