Why South Tyneside's Twitter court action threatens more than online freedom
South Tyneside's decision to take Twitter to court is the subject for Gordon Young's draft leader this week.
The Chip Shop Awards and the Cannes Festival are both important elements of this issue of The Drum - so it is fair to say that freedom of expression is very much on our agenda.
However, so are the forces designed to curtail it. We report on South Tyneside Council's dubious distinction of becoming the first UK authority to bring Twitter to heel.
Acting on the behalf of four councillors – who had allegedly been libelled on the site – the authority persuaded a court in California to order it to reveal the identity of the person behind the disputed Tweets.
No one can take issue with the right of an individual to seek recourse through the courts for libel. However, a public body suing on behalf of elected officials is another matter.
First and foremost libel battles are rarely about the merits of a case. They are usually about who has the deepest pockets.
And public bodies – even in these tough times – have access to more cash than most.
That is why this sort of action has to be nipped in the bud. If it becomes the norm it could have a chilling effect on public debate, particularly when these large fiscal guns – stuffed full of taxpayers cash – are aimed at private individuals.
South Tyneside will not say how much it has spent on the action but have said the total bill so far is under £75,000. With reassurance like that you can assume the figure might be more than the plaintiffs could hope to win in damages.
In the world of libel the potentially ruinous costs is the thing that often ensures sanity prevails and court action is avoided.
However, in this instance these checks and balances are missing. The councillors are not exposed to the costs, although in theory at least they can keep any cash compensation which results.
This will be based on any perceived damage to their reputation and awarded to them personally. At least one councillor has said he will hand over any money he receives. But that is not really the point. He is not obliged to do so, a fact that will not escape less honourable elected officials elsewhere.
The fact that those who thought they could Tweet with impunity have been proved wrong is an important story. However, a public body using public money to sue on the behalf of elected officials is a far bigger issue.
PS: Such actions are rare, but not unheard of. The Carnyx Group, which publishes The Drum, was recently threatened with legal action by Scotland's then Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini – a political appointee - over an article which appeared in a sister publication.
She dropped the action, referring us instead to the Press Complaints Commission. When the PCC found in our favour, The Drum was curious about who footed her legal bill – Angiolini personally or the Scottish Government. After considerable to-ing and fro-ing between the Crown Office and the the Freedom of Information Commisioner we still have not been told.