Lord McAlpine, Twitter and libel law: the facts

The law gives no immunity to Twitter gossip.

The constant challenge faced by the law is to adapt to social change. The social media present just such a problem becaus they are a twenty-first century means of gossiping, activity which includes the disclosure of private information and the making of defamatory allegations.

However, as we have all learnt recently, making serious allegations on Twitter - or Facebook, or anywhere simliar - can now have unpleasant consequences both for the subjects and perpetrators of such gossip.

The law concerning Twitter is straightforward: if you make a defamatory allegation via a tweet then you are liable to be sued for libel.

The bigger question facing us as a society is whether the law should regulate this kind of communication. Its role is to balance the right of free speech guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the Article 8 right to privacy and reputation. Which should take precedence on Twitter?

At the moment the law gives no immunity for Twitter gossip which infringes the rights of others. Anyone who has seen the interview with Lord McAlpine talking about the impact on him of being accused of being a paedophile will be left in no doubt about the effect the Twitter campaign (which eventually made its way into the commercial media) has had on him.

On that basis it looks like the right thing is for the twitterati to obey the same basic set of legal principles as the newspapers, broadcasters etc.

It is difficult to see the social value of allegations of paedophilia against innocent people doing the rounds on Twitter, sent by people with no basis to believe they are true. If the threat of legal sanction prevents this then such a modest qualification of the free speech right is surely in the greater public interest.

Jonathan Coad is a partner in the Media, Brands & Technology team at Lewis Silkin LLP. He can be contacted on 020 7074 8115 or at jonathan.coad@lewissilkin.com

This article first appeared in Spears magazine.

 

Twitter and the law. Photograph: Getty Images
GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.