Tw@er fined £15,000 for re-tweet.

[Nehvar]

Twitter User And Comedian Alan Davies Fined £15,000 For Re-Tweet

Wait...what?  That is a ridiculous sum for something like this; and how do you fine a guy for re-tweeting something instead of the originator of the tweet?

[Grumbs]

If only he said "allegedly" at some point in the tweet, that makes it OK

Don't think its much different than on TV, we have libel laws.

[zagibu]

I don't see the problem? Accusing someone in public to be a child molester is pretty serious.

[Kafein]

Well it's rather clear the Lord in question doesn't care at all about his image but just wants the money.

[[ptx]]

A tweet stating he is a child molester gets retweeted by a ton of people, how do you imagine him solving the issue and making it clear he is, in fact, not a child molester?

[Ninja_Khorin]

On the other hand, if someone actually thought he was a child molester and retweeted it, because some people aren't as jaded as we are, then they get fined 15 000 pounds.

[[ptx]]

Well, posting that someone is a child molester just like that is pretty malicious. If it actually gets attention and goes "viral", it can be really harmful to someone, i guess this is one way to actually stop it from happening - by making an example of some.

[Ninja_Khorin]

Well, posting that someone is a child molester just like that is pretty malicious. If it actually gets attention and goes "viral", it can be really harmful to someone, i guess this is one way to actually stop it from happening - by making an example of some.

OJ Simpson could earn millions.

My point is mainly, that the original tweeter should be looked at. If it looks like genuine info, then the re-tweeters can't exactly be held to blame.

[Swaggart]

Everyone should be fined for using twitter.

[CrazyCracka420]

This is pretty bullshit.

It'd be like person A claiming person B was a child molester, and the newspaper prints a story saying "Person A claims Person B is a child molester".  The person retweeting would be like the newspaper in this situation.  It's not their words, they're not saying the information is factual, nor should they have to somehow verify that.  It's just a way to pass along someone's message.

[Kafein]

Well, posting that someone is a child molester just like that is pretty malicious. If it actually gets attention and goes "viral", it can be really harmful to someone, i guess this is one way to actually stop it from happening - by making an example of some.

No it's not. This is starting to look like a Streisand effect because nobody cares about a potential child molester but everyone cares about Twitter (pardon the exaggeration).

This is pretty bullshit.

It'd be like person A claiming person B was a child molester, and the newspaper prints a story saying "Person A claims Person B is a child molester".  The person retweeting would be like the newspaper in this situation.  It's not their words, they're not saying the information is factual, nor should they have to somehow verify that.  It's just a way to pass along someone's message.

This. re-tweeting is not approving.

[[ptx]]

Noone cares? Really? If you were a public person, such as a Lord and suddenly there was this massive retweeting going on about a tweet, that states that you are a child molester (in a serious way, not a joke), you wouldn't care? Really?

On second thought, going after the retweeters is pretty dumb, though i guess it depends on who retweets it and in what way. In the same newspaper analogy, if the newspaper simply printed "Person A is a child molester", with person B as source on the bottom, it could very well be held accountable for libel, afaik.

[CrazyCracka420]

Noone cares? Really? If you were a public person, such as a Lord and suddenly there was this massive retweeting going on about a tweet, that states that you are a child molester (in a serious way, not a joke), you wouldn't care? Really?

On second thought, going after the retweeters is pretty dumb, though i guess it depends on who retweets it and in what way. In the same newspaper analogy, if the newspaper simply printed "Person A is a child molester", with person B as source on the bottom, it could very well be held accountable for libel, afaik.

Right, a newspaper wouldn't state it as fact.  They would say "Person B claims Person A is a child molester".  Entertainment and gossip sites do that all the time.  Hell even places like Fox News can basically say whatever they want as long as they preface it with "Some people are saying".  "Some people are saying Iraq has nuclear capabilities". 

Re-tweeting (without putting your opinion in the retweet) is just a way to do what these gossip and entertainment companies do, it's a way to say "so and so is saying X about Y".  The only person who should be held liable, is the person who is making the claims.

[[ptx]]

Newspapers don't do that, because they don't want to get sued. We don't really know how the sued guy re-tweeted it, do we? Maybe he did put something else on it, rather than just a retweet, which is why he got sued?

[zagibu]

Re-tweeting (without putting your opinion in the retweet) is just a way to do what these gossip and entertainment companies do, it's a way to say "so and so is saying X about Y".  The only person who should be held liable, is the person who is making the claims.

I can tell you how it is handled in German law. Not only the original statement is liable, but also the distribution of said statement, even if it's distributed in the form "so and so is saying X about Y". There are a few exceptions, like statements relating to trials.