Twitter 'troll' to pay six-figure sum

Reading the article is important here. The person that was being sued is settling (paying a 6-figure sum) and staying anonymous. They could have fought they case, but they apparently had enough money and were worried about being outed, that it was worth just paying and hiding.

It should be noted: Stephen Nolan is a Northern Irish presenter, and the trolling in question concerned whether his show gives an unfair amount of coverage to unionist positions, as opposed to nationalists. Personal security concerns are a big deal in this case, regardless of whether the anonymous figure is well-known or not. Settling here isn't necessarily just a PR move.

Disclaimer: I have no idea who Stephen Nolan is, and I&#x27;m not aware of the context. The reaction is based solely on the article.<p>I get a feeling that the light is only being shed on the side of the story which makes the &quot;victim&quot; look like an alpha male. All this &quot;message&quot; and &quot;tracing&quot; crap.<p>I wonder how this &quot;troll&quot; was &quot;traced&quot;. Specially trained Twitter-hound? You don&#x27;t just &quot;trace&quot; people on the internet.<p>They way I see it (the way the article depicts the situation), they very well knew who could be the troll, and simply threatened the offender:<p>&gt; There was immediate contrition and categoric statements of regret, with the individual pleading for anonymity due to his expressed personal security concerns<p>People usually say things like that when there is a presence of an immediate danger to their well-being.<p>I mean, fair enough, you play with the bull you get the horns. But don&#x27;t make it look like a triumph of justice accompanied with an honourable act of mercy. You just blackmailed six figures out of a person for sending texts.

Not many people have 6 figures lying around to pay... I think most regular people, faced with the offer of a 6 figure settlement, would probably fight it to the bitter end in court, before claiming bankruptcy.<p>I wonder if this might have been someone famous for whom 6 figures is expensive but not worth the PR damage?

Why is there no mention of what he actually said? There&#x27;s a big difference between calling someone a poopyhead and alleging he&#x27;s a pedophile.<p>How can the people stay informed about potential abuse when the press omits the most important part?

This is not your feel-good story about a Twitter abuser getting their just deserts. Stephen Nolan is a pro-UK commentator in Northern Ireland. The “troll” criticized him saying that he was presenting a biased view with biased numbers of guests. That is the “defamation” here and the reason there is a settlement here is that people involved in these issues have had a long history of turning up dead.

Sounds like a fairly standard defamation lawsuit. The only thing that stands out to me is the instant meme of:<p>&gt; This should be a warning to all trolls

The title isn&#x27;t a reasonable one: the very prejudicial descriptor &#x27;troll&#x27; is language from lawyers from one side of a legal dispute. The BBC isn&#x27;t credibly a neutral arbiter, because the litigant is one of their presenters.<p>This is not taking any position on the underlying dispute (which is apparently about Northern Ireland politics [0]), nor is it a criticism of or specific to the BBC.<p>[0] This Reddit discussion (probably) isn&#x27;t about the accusation that allegedly was defamatory (that&#x27;s not public knowledge AFAIK), but I think illustrates the character of the dispute, between the Twitter user and the BBC presenter:<p>&gt;<i>&quot;His Nolan guest analysis showed nationalist views are represented 6% of the time while unionist views get 65% of the airtime. That&#x27;s gone from Twitter. Does anyone have a copy?&quot;</i> (&quot;His&quot; refers to &quot;@PastorJimberoo1, @PastorJimberoo3&quot;)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;northernireland&#x2F;comments&#x2F;nmzp90&#x2F;what_happened_to_the_pastor_jimberoo_accounts_on&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;old.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;northernireland&#x2F;comments&#x2F;nmzp90&#x2F;wha...</a><p>~~~~~<p>[very late EDIT]: I&#x27;ve found one of the allegedly libelous claims. In the <i>Irish Times</i>, the Twitter user is reported as saying (through an attorney)<p>&gt;<i>&quot;I also set up a change.org petition against Mr Nolan, which had been based entirely on false and defamatory allegations, with the aim of undermining and damaging his professional reputation.&quot;</i><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.irishtimes.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;crime-and-law&#x2F;twitter-user-to-pay-six-figure-sum-over-false-allegations-about-bbc-s-stephen-nolan-1.4609050" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.irishtimes.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;crime-and-law&#x2F;twitter-user-t...</a><p>There&#x27;s clear evidence (from searching social media, from multiple directions: @username + &#x27;petition&#x27;, or stephan nolan + &#x27;petition&#x27;, &amp;c.) that the referenced petition is this one, which asks the BBC to cancel Stephen Nolan&#x27;s program:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.change.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be-cancelled-by-the-bbc-for-stirring-sectarian-tensions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.change.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be...</a> (is this link dead for everyone or just me?)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ55418J:https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.change.org&#x2F;p&#x2F;bbc-the-bbc-ni-nolan-show-should-be-cancelled-by-the-bbc-for-stirring-sectarian-tensions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;webcache.googleusercontent.com&#x2F;search?q=cache:Y0T0IQ...</a><p>So, one of the claims that&#x27;s conceded as defamatory is (to my inference, drawn from the above):<p>&gt;<i>&quot;For example, on 3rd February 2021, the show provided a platform for an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations to threaten violence relating to the NI Protocol. This is highly irresponsible and risks inflaming tensions which could lead to violence. However this is not a unique example and the show regularly platforms unelected representatives and apologists for paramilitary organisations.&quot;</i><p>For even further confirmation: here&#x27;s the BBC singling out this petition as defamatory, back in Feburary:<p>&gt;<i>&quot;THE BBC has said an online petition campaigning for the cancellation of The Stephen Nolan Show is an attempt to “smear and censor” its journalism.&quot;</i><p>&gt;&quot;<i>The petition, which passed 10,000 signatures over the weekend, claims the award-winning BBC Radio Ulster programme “seeks to stir sectarian tensions for ratings”.&quot;</i><p>&gt;<i>&quot;A statement accompanying the online campaign cites an interview broadcast on Radio Ulster on February 3 2021 with “an unelected representative of illegal proscribed paramilitary organisations”, where it claims threats of violence were made.&quot;</i><p>&gt;&quot;<i>It is understood the comments relate to the interview with the chair of Loyalist Communities Council (LCC), David Campbell on the Northern Ireland Protocol, where he told Mr Nolan: &quot;If it comes to the bit where we have to fight physically to maintain our freedoms within the UK, so be it.&quot;</i>&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.irishnews.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;northernirelandnews&#x2F;2021&#x2F;02&#x2F;15&#x2F;news&#x2F;campaign-to-cancel-nolan-show-is-attempt-to-smear-and-censor-journalism---bbc-2220641&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.irishnews.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;northernirelandnews&#x2F;2021&#x2F;02&#x2F;1...</a>

&quot;Despite this attempt to destroy his reputation with falsehoods, Mr Nolan has agreed not to name this individual, <i>dependent on his future conduct</i>.&quot;<p>I remember this same line from the CNN Trump WWE GIF guy - the cases are different, for one this is a legal case and it being in the UK. Here is what CNN said in that story[1]:<p>CNN is not publishing “HanA*holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.<p><i>CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.</i><p>Exactly when does this kind of behavior become blackmail? How remorseful do you have to continue to be so the corporation threatening to dox you doesn&#x27;t? A lot of people will say a name alone is not doxing, but the safety concerns are real when there&#x27;s potentially thousands of people that would hurt you, seeking out the rest of your details. It seems these media companies have near unlimited power to brazenly admit to this, under the excuse of supposed public interest in the identity of private citizens. The identities aren&#x27;t even relevant to their respective stories.<p>It should go without saying that defending the post content specifically is not the point, and can easily flip between political ideologies as years go by and this kind of media behavior is left unchecked.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;07&#x2F;04&#x2F;politics&#x2F;kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;07&#x2F;04&#x2F;politics&#x2F;kfile-reddit-user-tr...</a>

Am I crazy or could it be read that the money is being more or less extorted from the payer?

Here&#x27;s what seems like a level headed twitter thread of people defending BBCs &quot;Troll&quot; in Feburary.<p>You&#x27;ll note, they consider a comment from another journalist calling him a provo (Provisional Irish Republican Army) being close to a serious threat of causing harm.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;squinteratn&#x2F;status&#x2F;1364596254509047815" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;squinteratn&#x2F;status&#x2F;1364596254509047815</a><p>A subthread of note on the above thread - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;GregoryRasputin&#x2F;status&#x2F;1364584189820096513" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;GregoryRasputin&#x2F;status&#x2F;13645841898200965...</a>

This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It&#x27;s usually a single individual, but often it&#x27;s someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s much legal action to take in those cases.

Smells bad to me. Paying 6 figures without HMRC touching it, hummm! People that engage defamation need to have a proper sentence, it can start we community service.

Defamatory laws could be used way more often, seen how much disinformation there is out there.

Where exactly is the line drawn between disagreement and defamation?

It seems misleading for the headline to talk about &quot;damages&quot; when the case settled. &quot;Damages&quot; to me suggests court-ordered compensation.

The word “troll” has lost all meaning. It’s worse than “hacker”. I now reflexively disregard the people who use the term. I’m sure they’d say that anyone who disagrees must be “trolling” too. A bad word that impedes thinking.

Should&#x27;ve used a VPN!

Will he be able to colllect? It does send a message though.

&gt; The individual admitted running a campaign which &quot;involved the systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations&quot; against Mr Nolan.<p>I think that it is good that someone got to own up for the turdslinging they do online, but why are we ok with platforms that aren’t held accountable for the “systematic dissemination of false and defamatory allegations” they enable? What if you don’t have BBC lawyers and resources behind you when you or your little company is targeted?<p>I know this may be a little too Scandinavian for some HN users, but I simply don’t get why we don’t hold the social media platforms accountable for the content that gets posted to them. We have laws and bureaucracies in place to govern traditional media, exactly because the two world and the Cold War showed us what propaganda is capable of, and yet, we let these new platforms do whatever they want?<p>Maybe that would break Social Media, because their automatic moderation wouldn’t be up to the task, but so what? The way things are moving forward, the platforms claim to have upped their moderation, but as long as they aren’t actually held accountable by any democratic institution, they will still mainly be moderated by the advertising industry and that’s just not not what’s in public interest.<p>I know Donald Trump is a touchy subject to bring up. But why was he banned when he was? Shouldn’t he either have been de-platformed long ago, or not at all? Sure was convenient for the companies to do so when they did, wasn’t it? I’m personally happy that I haven’t heard a single thing about American republicans in 2021, but I still think it’s a democratic issue that it is a select few tech-billionaires that can remove someone like Donald Trump from my life and not any form of public institution.<p>It all goes back to the lack of moderation and the lack of consequences for these Social Media platforms. Yeah, one “ systematic dissemination campaign” was stopped because the BBC protects its journalists, but how many go unpunished?

I&#x27;m a fan of free speech, but defamation is one of the limits I agree with.<p>The UK has a stricter framework than the US, but I think these cases should happen in the US too.<p>It&#x27;s good to see precedent being established for prosecuting those that abuse social media for evil.<p>I&#x27;m interested in who the guilty party is in this case. They can afford a six figure penalty and want to remain anonymous.

They hurt my feelings :( must file defamation lawsuit.<p>Just kidding, but here in the US you have harassment which is usually a criminal matter and then libel&#x2F;slander. You can pretty much say whatever you want about a public figure like a politician ad long as it isn&#x27;t threats, unless your AOC cause she thinks saying she has bad hair is a threat. One of the things a lot of people think from being naive is that if people are saying it online and not getting sued then it must me true, which is how some conspiracies spread.