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

This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:

Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”


Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:

“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”

This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”

Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”

Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.

She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“

Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”

Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...

You May Also Like