How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/

1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact. https://t.co/1PkiI4olib
2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.
Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/ https://t.co/mk6g7TeBzE
I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/
It may be different if I called [person] a racist without indicating why - because that may imply to readers I know [damaging facts] that I can’t prove. 6/
3. When you tweet your facts with your opinion, you help show what you mean by your words. So “corruption” has different meanings - here I’m showing one 7/ https://t.co/jgVVtnsC5D
4. If someone alleges defamation, take it seriously. Think “can I prove the fact I stated / based my opinion on? Is my opinion reasonable?” 8/
5. If you’re in doubt, ask someone you trust to read what you’ve said. And to ask you those same questions - “can you prove the facts? Is your opinion reasonable?” 9/
6. Just because someone says “that’s libel” doesn’t mean it is. Yaxley-Lennon *is* a racist. He hasn’t sued me yet. 10/
7. If you think your tweet was wrong, or you don’t think you can show the facts, I’d delete it. You can always tweet it again if you become sure enough. 11/
8. If someone tells you they think you libelled *them* (not someone else), don’t ignore them. Think about how to respond, and respond. 12/
9. A person who may have been libelled is expected by the court to try to settle the dispute without proceedings. https://t.co/Jb9kDB8aT9
10. If someone tweets/DMs that you’ve libelled them but it’s not clear how, you can ask them what it is that you’ve said they disagree with - especially *factually*.

Because you may have it wrong, or they may have misunderstood you. 14/
11. Think before you *re-tweet* and *reply* to a tweet that may be libellous. Treat RTing and agreeing replies as if the tweet was in your name. 15/
Libel law is important protection.

How our friends, colleagues, the world sees us matters to many people. The law isn’t going away.

16/16

More from Law

I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.