This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.
Steve Kuncewicz
About Me
Intellectual Property, Media and Social Media Lawyer working in Manchester, Media and Pop Culture Obsessive, Published Author, Golden Twit 2011, Dad, Husband, Wannabe Creative and poor-but-aspiring guitarist.
This certainly isn't the first time that Tweeters have been sued for defamation (see the Chris Cairns v Lilat Modi case, where Cairns won £90k over match-fixing allegations in March this year), but if McAlpine goes after EVERYONE who named him, then that will be a first and more likely than not a hugely expensive exercise. Libel's meant to be about vindicating damage to reputation, and McAlpine's has been wrongly trashed. Even if he does, he'll probably only go after those who explicitly named him. This may yet be a defining case on driving home the point that the law online applies just the same way as it does in the real world.
If a blogger or Tweetr is paid to blog or tweet then they need to make that clear but otherwise providing samples etc. should be ok. Not sure re: affiliate links! @jenif11625
This certainly isn't the first time that Tweeters have been sued for defamation (see the Chris Cairns v Lilat Modi case, where Cairns won £90k over match-fixing allegations in March this year), but if McAlpine goes after EVERYONE who named him, then that will be a first and more likely than not a hugely expensive exercise. Libel's meant to be about vindicating damage to reputation, and McAlpine's has been wrongly trashed. Even if he does, he'll probably only go after those who explicitly named him. This may yet be a defining case on driving home the point that the law online applies just the same way as it does in the real world.
15 Nov 2012 - 11:08