This (see screenshots) is from the website of Brett Wilson, a law firm that specialises in libel.
Some interesting points about Twitter libel. They say:
- “Avoid the temptation to respond directly to the tweeter, retaliate or engage in a spat. You may make matters worse, undermine any claim you have or, worse still, commit a more serious libel.” Ahem.
- It is relevant if the alleged libel was re-tweeted. Jack herself and many of her followers did this, while crowing about how the libel case would buy Jack a house. No court in the land would think this looks good.
- The court may question whether there has been any serious reputational harm (which you have to show to assert libel) if you don’t “act quickly” in seeking to vindicate your reputation. In other words: if Jack wants to assert Lee Anderson has libelled her (and it’s highly doubtful this argument would succeed anyway), she has left it a long time to sue. Why? The court will look at this, she will need to explain it, and the court could well conclude that in reality she wasn’t seriously bothered about any damage to her reputation.
Some food for thought, Jack.
View attachment 1952618View attachment 1952619