- Court in the act again part one… - 23rd January 2025
- More Belated Broadcasting Corporation - 22nd January 2025
- Dead eye - 22nd January 2025
During 23 years with BBC Cymru Wales (BBC CW), and 41 years in journalism (when he was trained to use clear and simple language, avoiding jargon), our Editor. Welshman Phil Parry has always known that all stories are governed by legal rules and must not be open to court action, and this is now underlined by the enormous publicity given to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, when he is the first US President in modern times to be a convicted felon.
There are legal rules which govern behaviour, and Donald Trump appears to be caught up in them…
As Mr Trump takes his second oath of office, unprecedented legal entanglements continue to cast a shadow.
A New York (NY) court recently sentenced him over 34 felony counts of falsifying business records—crimes stemming from efforts illegally to influence the 2016 presidential election.
The court granted him an ‘unconditional discharge,’ instead of imprisonment, probation or a fine.
In essence, NY convicted Mr Trump of multiple crimes but decided not to punish him.
Some commentators have pointed out the conviction is still symbolically significant: Mr Trump is now the first—and only—criminal elected to the presidency.
This is an extraordinary situation, because even lowly journalists like me must know a bit about the law, let alone the most powerful person in the world!
Over decades in journalism successive News Editors (now known as ‘content editors’) have drummed into me the importance of KNOWING THE LAW!
The fundamental rules do not change, although they alter all the time at the edges, and today social media has made them even more acute. They are also different in other countries.
Under British law, it is possible to ask a court to make something called a Norwich Pharmacal order – named after the 1970s case that established the principle – and request that sites such as Twitter/X hand over any information they may hold on an account, like the email used to register it and other identifying markers.
A vital plank of a libel case (and Mr Trump should know about them) is to prove that the comment in question has been PUBLISHED to a third party.
In other words you won’t get sued for telling your mate something in a pub, but if you PROCLAIM it in, say, a newspaper piece or book and STAND UP in the pub to say it, then you might.
All stories on The Eye are double-checked by a libel lawyer, but people seem to be unaware of the legal rules limiting any piece which is published, and they write the most appalling things (naming an individual or organisation) on Twitter/X or Facebook (FB).
This is a developing area legally, and one of the key issues is that these remarks online can, obviously, be read in all countries of the world, so lawyers are looking at whether THEIR country’s legal rules then apply.
As long as the named individual or organisation in the tweet resides in, for example, America, then THAT country’s legal rules must be adhered to; however if the person or body is in another country, then THOSE laws may also apply.
This is why, for instance, Mr Trump has, apparently, felt free to make the most awful remarks on Twitter/X, seemingly in the knowledge that as long as he doesn’t name anybody in another country, then he can’t be touched.
But perhaps I am imbuing him with more intellect than he actually possesses (which can be defended in a UK court as ‘Honest Comment’, or as it used to be known ‘Fair Comment’ incidentally)!
In the past he has called his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton “crooked”, and has made the most terrible observations about Republican Ted Cruz.
Trump, because he was convicted in a law suit from Stormy Daniels
Even earlier plain old MR Trump said that Mr Cruz was “violent and vicious” towards him, during the primaries of 2016.
In the past Mr Trump has used Twitter/X to describe the respected left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement ANTIFA, as a “Terrorist Organisation”.
He has said there was “political corruption” in a county in Georgia, naming as a “puppet Lt.” Governor Geoff Duncan.
Mr Trump has accused on social media, the high-profile television journalist Chuck Todd of being “Sleepy Eyes”, and that he was “so happy with the fake voter tabulation process”.
He declared that the former Republican representative and Secretary of State for Georgia Brad Raffensperger has “no clue”.
Clearly these sort of announcements are highly libellous, and if they involved individuals in the UK, they could have faced legal action, yet because they were in the US they have not (so far).
As a result of these (and other outrageous tweets), Mr Trump was banned by Twitter/X.
Yet is obvious that when engaging in communication online, even in Britain, people have NO CLUE (to use a Trump phrase!) of the legal rules.
A recent comment about The Eye’s story concerning a television ‘reporter’ who had posted pictures of herself on FB or Twitter in skimpy clothes, is typical of the insults I constantly receive: “Your article on Ellie Pitt was bordering on mysogynistic bullying, a really pathetic article written by a bitter individual who was a complete failiure as a BBC correspondent and also loved bashing the Catholic Church with your disgraceful Panorama programme”.
Indeed accusations of being ‘misogynistic’ (which is the correct spelling) ‘sexist’, or ‘misogynist’ are a constant refrain among those who hurl abusive comments, if factual stories are published with the targets happening to be women, yet these are potentially libellous words, and the description is provably wrong.
In the past I have also been accused online (incorrectly) of being a “bastard” (many times), an “anti-devolutionist wanker”, “pure scum”, a “liar” (also many times) a “little git”, and (correctly) a “nosey git”, “irritating”, or a “nuisance”. But these remarks come amid many others. Too many, in fact, to mention.
I have tried not to read them, although I must admit I have not always been successful, and rarely sue (although I do sometimes)…
It seems a shame the people behind those insults are not, apparently, aware of such legal rules.
However even Mr Trump (who is not known for his computer prowess and employs other people to do most of his tweets) using a defence like this in the UK, might be stretching it a bit – even if he is now President!
The memories of Phil’s decades long award-winning career in journalism (when online abuse was rare at the beginning) as he was gripped by the incurable neurological condition, Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia (HSP), have been released in a major book ‘A GOOD STORY’. Order it now!
Tomorrow – ‘Court in the act again part two’, where he welcomes more evidence that the court system is now opening up to reporters like him.
