Introduction
The 2013 case of McAlpine v Bercow has stimulated significant academic debate recently. This trial – whilst surfacing the inter-relationships between personal privacy, defamation and digital communication – suggests that it will have significant implications for the media. This essay will evaluate the extent to which statements made through digital communications are defamatory. The assessment of this highly influential English decision, however, will also consider an equally provocative argument: can tweets be defamatory? It could be suggested that the courts will be reluctant to hold a defamatory Twitter ‘tweet’ as achieving true defamatory status. In part two of this essay, there will be a critical discussion of the considerable volume of academic commentaries prompted by the trial. In doing so, this will allow for an evaluation of the implications arising from the Court’s defamation finding and how, more importantly, they are placed in a broader media context. Nevertheless, this essay will ultimately show that McAlpine represents a sobering illustration that publishing an opinion on a seemingly limitless social media site can be just as damaging as that precipitated in any other place.
Part One: McAlpine v Bercow’s likely effect on the media
There are distinct elements within the trial judgement that require separate evaluations. The facts of McAlpine are a solid platform for understanding all of the concerns generated in the case. McAlpine, the claimant, is a high profile former Conservative Party politician who has been retired for over 20 years. Whilst on a 2013 ‘Newsnight’ television broadcast, McAlpine was incorrectly identified as being connected to a series of alleged child sex abuse incidents. Alt...
... middle of paper ...
...ase does well to strike a balance between reputation rights and freedom of expression.
Conclusion
McAlpine v Bercow signifies the importance of vigilance when making an opinion public in the digital communication sphere. This case certainly contributes to the regulation of modern-day English media and defamation law on a broader scale. The reasoning delivered by Tugendhat J explain that the former defamation principles that claimants relied on in traditional media environments, are now readily translated into the digital social media world. A ‘tweet’ seven words long has been proven to result in defaming the reputation of those mistakenly accused. Those that choose to use Twitter, or any other seemingly casual format, must be aware that being defamatory on a social media site can be just as damaging as that precipitated in a newspaper, speech or broadcast.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
...gle network (443.) Some schools use material from Myspace and Facebook in their judicial proceedings while others turn a blind eye to the site (442.) Through the ineffective use of rhetorical tools and the cognizant arrangement of this essay, Fleming fails to manage the distance between herself and the audience with the flow and fluency of the article. She also does not establish her credibility and portray her scholarly credit through her citations of literature and quotations from experts. Fleming also does not present the audience with two analogies enabling them to make logical conclusions.
My Objective in studying the case of McCulloch v. Maryland was to learn how the implied powers granted by the U.S. Constitution came to be known.
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
Constitutional Question: Does the State of Maryland have the power, under Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18, to impose taxes on an institution created by Congress? Does Congress have the power under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to establish a bank?
In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of
While social media can be an exceptional tool for connecting with others and gaining valuable information, it also can be easily transformed into a playground for senseless arguments and cyberbullying. Just as Abigail Williams used elaborate accusations towards innocent people for her benefit, people engage in plenty of finger-pointing and fear-mongering daily. The shame and fear generated by this is not far from the craze of McCarthyism from half a century ago. Furthermore, social media can be a catalyst for the destruction of privacy: there is no limit to how much one can share. Everyone in “The Crucible” has inner humiliations that haunt their minds, from John Proctor’s adultery to Reverend Hale’s inner moral conflict towards Salem’s trials. Today, with one click, these personal demons can easily be set free.
Banks, G. (2011, July 18). As social media expand, rulings evolve for students and teachers expressing freedom of speech. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.post-gazette.com/home/2011/07/18/As-social-media-expand-rulings-evolve-for-students-and-teachers-expressing-freedom-of-speech/stories/201107180190#ixzz30tCKfc
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."1
A social media post that creates negativity as well as a civil issue for both the individual and the fire and emergency service can occur through intentional malice or occur accidently. “It is rare for firefighters to post in malice but it does happen” (Roberts, 2012, para. 3). Timothy Dluhos, a FDNY Emergency Medical Service Lieutenant, is facing legal action along with the department, due to a social media post ranting about a patient and posting a photo of the patient in a wheel chair with a wide load sign photo shopped into the photo (Saul, 2013). While it is unclear if FDNY has a policy on social media postings, the woman is seeking damages from emotional suffering and Lieutenant Dluhos has since resigned from his position with FDNY (Saul, 2013). Many argue that the use and posting on social media is his or her constitutional right, however the first amendment of the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or a...
Technology has provided our society with numerous innovations that have been created to improve the quality of life on a daily basis. One such innovation is the Internet. The access to a wide variety of information is perhaps the most valuable tool, as well as the most important tool, that we have entering the twenty-first century. There are virtually no limits on how much can be achieved through the use of the Internet. This is not, however, necessarily a good thing. Most people find that offensive material such as child pornography and hate-related propaganda can be viewed by people too easily via the Internet. While child pornography is a detestable subject, it does not have the sort of appeal that a hate group website does in that there are stricter guidelines preventing individuals from attaining child pornography material from the Internet. These stricter guidelines include the Communications Decency Act (1995), which forbids the use of the Internet for such purposes as attaining material of a child pornographic nature (Wolf, 2000). This law can also be used to monitor the hate group websites, but since the law is too broad, it is rarely held up in court. The hate group websites do, however, have a large enough following that there is legislation being formed to specifically target the material on the sites. Despite the highly offensive nature of hate group websites, the sites should not be censored because the right to free speech must be preserved. In this paper we will define what is considered to be hateful content; why this hateful content should be protected; what else can be done to monitor this material on the Internet; and when are the people cr...
...protect those who printed claims, even though they may be untrue, by disagreeing that they had the right to do so. Further, the defenses of ‘justification’ and ‘fair comment’ have been replaced with ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’. Another major change in the law of defamation deals with tortfeasors who do not reside in the UK, an EU member state or a state which is part of the Lugano Convention. The change means that the UK court does not have to perceive any case if it can be proved the UK would be the most suitable place to deal with the action against the tortfeasor. A particular publication law has also been recognized, which accommodates the occurrence of online news stories. In this law, a one year restriction starts when a story is issued. Every time the story is repeated or watched, a single action cannot be brought about by the claimant against the publisher.
In certain situations, it is very clear as to what constitutes being acceptable speech on social media, and what does not. In such cases as United States v. Elonis, speech made over the internet meant to incite a serious threat, or be taken as a serious threat, is not protected as free speech. What happens however, when speech online is not threatening in nature, but runs along the lines of limiting individuals like sex offenders access to social media platforms? In February of 2017, the Supreme Court reviewed an argument made for North Carolina to be allowed to bar registered sex offenders form accessing various social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. North Carolina’s largest argument is that this law banning sex offenders from social media is for the protection of minors, not the limiting of expression. Due to the nature with which social has developed as a part of American society, the question that arises is the constitutionality of preventing an individual from so much information that is available. Justices Kagan and Ginsburg don’t seem to think so, as both of them feel that these sorts of limitations and restrictions severely hamper an individual’s ability to function within society. This is an important issues in that it will establish a precedent for the country. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of North Carolina, then whole integrity
However, in “Twitter, Hate speech, and the cost of keeping quiet” Lukianoff, believes that our opinions shouldn’t be censored, and we have a right to use angry words, “Hate Speech” “is constitutionally protected in the United States” (Lukianoff, 388)
"Hate Propaganda in Cyberspace", by Young M. Kim, attempts to address the issue of censorship of the Internet with respect to hate propaganda. The relevancy of the argument against censorship in favour of free speech is undeniable, but Kim's means of arguing so is mediocre. Kim's supporting evidence is weak and contradictory, her style depreciating, and her solution vague but sensible. Despite these shortcomings, the idea to utilize free speech and public education to combat cyberhate is a powerful suggestion in comparison to the social impediments of censorship.