Hopkins gets her come-uppance ?

Just for the record, I was self-employed for most of the 40+ years of my professional life. Although I frequently sold articles and entire books, usually written as commissions, to a small group of publishers, I was not employed by them. My self-employment was recognised by HMRC which, therefore, allowed me to claim office expenses, travel expenses, a proportion of household bills, etc. against income tax. It is impossible to do that if you are employed by a company. You seem to have misunderstood what you have read Ankers.

Of course you were not employed by them.

Darn! I got drawn in! I shall not be doing that again.

Some weeks back Trevor Phillips did a programme about politicle correctness going too far. His closing statement on the programme was: Maybe we should get used to being offended. I believe he has a point.

Haven't read the whole thread, but went to post my thoughts on Hopkins, only to find that the thread had digressed to an exceptional degree!

Rigsby, I must ask, if she writes on such a low intellectual level so cannot impinge on your thought level, why do you read her?

good point ab

bags I do agree with you, whatever anybody thinks about what KH writes , we do not need censorship.

The devil on my shoulder is saying that Monroe could be accused of seeking publicity in pursuing this through the courts.Not that seeking publicity is intrinisically a bad thing, especially if you write books that you want to sell, but it's the sort of accusation that's thrown at provocateurs like Hopkins as if it were a bad thing.

She's on LBC Sunday mornings 10-12am. I wonder if there'll be any comment on this tomorrow?

This seems to have morphed into what we think about KH and while I find her loathsome I agree she is perfectly fee to be as obnoxious as she likes as I for one have no intention of reading her .
However the initial point was about a judgement of the court regarding this particular instance of libel on Twitter for which she appeared to express no remorse in the shape of an apology, preferring to "bully" JM who, I imagine has rather less disposable income and daring her to seek redress in law.
For that reason, I am glad that the court saw sense. The damages are paltry by libel action standards, the costs considerably more. It was a brave thing to do to risk losing and althoughJM has also made a name for herself via her initial cookery blogs, she will not be in the same income bracket as KH.
So, those who wish to go on debating free speech/crass articles/DM/Breakfast TV by all means please do. But that was not my OP and as so often happens we seem to have come a long way via (again) heated posts, equally hot air and assorted dead-ends.

I thought reading the Monroe v Hopkins judgement in its entirety might cure my sleeplessness, but unfortunately not.

Just some observations:

Hopkins was writing for the Sun, not the Daily Mail, when she wrote the tweets, so I'm not sure why the DM would pay her legal fees, unless they see her as an asset.

There were two tweets. The first one was on Hopkins' home page for at least two hours. Hopkins has over half a million followers, who could potentially have seen the tweet. They wouldn't have realised that there had been a case of mistaken identity.

Even after Hopkins realised her mistake, she refused to issue an apology or retraction and called Monroe 'social anthrax'.

The judge refers to “right-thinking people generally”, who would have been offended by the implication in Hopkins' accusation.

There was no attempt at retraction by Hopkins. Therefore, “right-thinking people generally” would have continued to believe that Monroe had been offensive, despite being entirely innocent of the accusation.

Hopkins has referred to the tweet as a 'joke'. I am extremely glad that most people don't seem to share her sense of humour, especially as she now thinks of herself as a cross between Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

I don't believe she should be censored. It's far better that her comments stand and be fought by “right-thinking people generally”. We will end up with the society we deserve.

thatbags I don't think that Monroe can be accused of anything. She was being defamed and had every right to take the action she did. Her high profile might lead other people to have the courage to stand up to this kind of defamation, which is getting out of hand on social media.

If the stuff, on the news and politics board in particular, and gransnet in general were tweets, and if the posters were not annonymous, and if the posters were famous enough to potentailly have their reputation damaged, then the actual stuff that is written daily, is sometimes far far worse than what KH was sued for.

Not at all saying that KH should have said it[she shouldnt have], and not at all saying that she should not have apologised[she should have done],but perhaps that is why some people are saying that the defamation laws are draconian.

I am not convinced that the law should be changed though.

the actual stuff that is written daily on gransnet

I don't think anybody is suggesting the law should be changed. It has already been updated to take account of "internet libel".
Free speech is one thing, slander and libel another.

Actually where on GN, Ankers?
Racist or homophobic posts are fairly promptly deleted and I have seen none which incite to terrorism or any illegal activities.
The presence of the three IFs in your contention remind me of the (old) saying "if we had any bacon, we'd have bacon and eggs, if we had any eggs".

MB. There was one thread in particular on the news and politics thread, about 2 months ago, that got so bad that if gransnet went through it, there would not have been much left of it!
I presumeit is still standing in all of its glory.

^ I have seen none which incite to terrorism or any illegal activities.^
No, I dont think there were those, but my point is,what KH actually got sued for wasnt either? Or was it?

The presence of the three IFs in your contention remind me of the (old) saying "if we had any bacon, we'd have bacon and eggs, if we had any eggs".

Yes I know, but I think you can see my point.

'Social anthrax'!! That's absolutely appalling. How could any 'right thinking' person expect to get away with calling someone else that?

MB. There was one thread in particular on the news and politics thread, about 2 months ago, that got so bad that if gransnet went through it, there would not have been much left of it!
I presumeit is still standing in all of its glory

Threads about threads -not allowed. Some threads do get very overheated but I do not recall anything which fits the description of criminal libel which I quoted yesterday.
.

i have seen none which incite to terrorism or any illegal activities

My point is that this is another criterion of criminal libel which is particularly applicable to the internet.
Calling people names or being offensive, while unpleasant and nor desirable, does not constitute either hate crime, slander or libel.

What KH was sued for was libel (accusing JM of defacing war memorials) and that was the judgement of the court.
No, I dont think there were those, but my point is,what KH actually got sued for wasnt either? Or was it?

My point MB is at 07.36am. I am not going to repeat it.

I have seen that and you have I hope read my opinion. No point in arguing discussing at cross purposes is there?
Don't see what there is to add.

Ankers Maybe you should plough your way through the whole judgement, although I warn you it's boring.

The judge took into account that Jack Monroe is sometimes controversial and uses bad language herself. He also recognised that she didn't respond in the best way to the Tweets. He said the award would have been higher,if she'd responded better.

Nevertheless, she has quite a high profile and has a reputation to uphold. Katie Hopkins implied that she had approved something which most people would find shocking. The way the Tweet was written was deliberately confrontational. The Tweet was on Hopkins' home page for long enough (at least two hours) for other people to read it and believe it. Some of these people then sent abusive Tweets to Monroe, which caused her distress. The graffiti on the war memorial had already made headline news, so people were feeling outraged about it.

When Hopkins realised her mistake, she deleted the Tweet, but refused to apologise or retract the comment. After Monroe demanded an apology, Hopkins then made the 'social anthrax' comment. The judge said that if Hopkins had retracted the comment at that point and not made the further Tweet, there might not have been a case to answer. It was because she couldn't admit that she'd been wrong (a bit like Trump, although the judge didn't say that) that she lost the case. She didn't turn up for the hearing, so couldn't be cross-examined.

Most of us on GN use usernames, so our reputation (if we have one) can't be defamed. As the judge acknowledged, Hopkins herself cultivates an impression that she's an outspoken 'rentagob' and she makes money from that image, so it would be difficult to know what kind of reputation she has to be defamed. It would be different if people were to accuse her of lying about her epilepsy or some other personal detail. Any comments on here probably confirm Hopkins' own self-created image.

Thank you dd (not least for ploughing through the judgement!!) You have summarised it very clearly and succinctly and I hope that will forestall anybody going off at tangents or tilting at windmills arguing against something which doesn't exist.

Well...er...quite!

I must have missed (or maybe I didn't) any suggestion that the law should be changed. Some people have suggested that the law shouldn't have been been enforced.