When tweets
become twibels….
Facing up to the social media
challenge for business
Every business using social
media should get to grips with publishing law and advertising regulations if
they are to avoid reputation-damaging incidents.
The reminder follows the news that opinion columnist
Katie Hopkins has been refused leave to appeal against a recent High Court libel
verdict, where she was found to have published defamatory tweets, or what’s
been coined ‘twibel’.
Anyone
using social media is a publisher, putting information out into the public
domain, but unlike newspapers and book publishers, most businesses don’t have a
good understanding of publishing law and how to avoid breaching it. Similarly, many businesses are not
considering how their social media posts may breach advertising regulations, as
the boundaries between paid-for advertising and other forms of communication
become more blurred.
It’s
the sort of confusion that led to a complaint being made that a tweet sent from
the account of England football captain Wayne Rooney, as part of his
sponsorship by Nike (UK), was not clearly marked as a marketing
communication. The tweet read: "The pitches change. The killer
instinct doesn't. Own the turf, anywhere. @NikeFootball #myground
pic.twitter.com/22jrPwdgC1". Although in that case the Advertising
Standards Authority found that Nike (UK) had not breached the code of conduct,
saying the tweet was obviously identifiable as a Nike marketing communication,
it may not always be clear to businesses where the line is drawn.
For Katie Hopkins, the
tweets she posted that were found to be defamatory implied that prominent
poverty campaigner and writer Jack Monroe had defaced a war memorial, in a case
of mistaken identity. Monroe offered her
the chance to publicly apologise or face legal action, but Hopkins refused. When the case reached the High Court, the
tweets were found to have caused ‘serious’ harm to Monroe’s reputation. Hopkins must pay damages of £24000 to Monroe,
together with Monroe’s legal costs.
In making the judgement,
the court had to determine whether the tweets met the requirement for harm that
is set out in the Defamation Act 2013 and experts say the ruling is the most
important case to date involving libel on social media.
"Controlling
social media content is a huge issue for business,” said employment and social
media expert Elissa Thursfield of Gamlins
Law. “It’s a fast-moving arena and often
posts, tweets, retweets and comments are the subject of instant
decision-making. When careful reflection
isn’t part of the equation, it’s not surprising that it can lead to
problems. It is important that social
media policies are kept under constant review and that everyone understands the
boundaries they are operating within, through both the company’s marketing
strategy and their terms of employment.
“Staff could also learn from the 26-point guide on how to use Twitter,
published by the High Court as part of its official ruling in the Hopkins case,
which provides a summary of how the platform works. It makes for useful
reading, even for those who think themselves experts, as a reminder of who will
receive postings when tweeting, re-tweeting or replying.”
She added: "It’s important to
have a good crisis management plan in place as well, so that if the worst
happens and a mistake is made, then everyone knows what to do if something
inappropriate has been posted. Taking
swift action with a public retraction is a good start and will demonstrate a
willingness to tackle the problem. In
the case of Katie Hopkins and her mistaken tweet about Jack Monroe, if she had
been quick to correct herself and made a public apology that reached the original
audience of her tweets, it’s quite likely the case would not have passed the
necessary ‘serious harm’ test for defamation and the case may never have gone
to court.”
