Les régulateurs français sont désagréables

Things were different then though, it was a publicly owned monopoly. The viewer had no choice and in fact it was effectively a sister organisation to the BBC


No it's not, Facebook is a brandname of a multimillion $ corporation.

'Website' is a generic term and the website is just an extension of the programme - it's the broadcaster's territory. There are rules about giving out website addresses of other (not connected to the broadcaster) sites - hence the BBC and ITV always point the audience towards links on their own websites.

I stand corrected.

I think this is far more relevant to Twitter than Facebook lately. But this whole situation is ridiculous. If I want to interact with a programme, or indeed a celebrity, I want to know their Twitter username. I couldn't care less if it breaches some sort of protocol by naming a commercial brand.

The sort of people that would ban this obviously don't have any understanding of social networking. Similarly we have had a superinjunction lawyer attempting to sue Twitter recently. Suing Twitter for something a user has posted is like suing McDonalds because a customer has said something offensive whilst ordering a Big Mac.

Fundamentally, advertising a link to my Twitter page is advertising ME, not Twitter. Sure, there will be a handful of people that watch This Morning and think 'oh, Philip's on Twitter, I'll have to sign up to that', but who cares? It's done now, Twitter is mainstream and it's far to late to start making rules after the horse has bolted.

It's more like suing a newspaper because one of their journalists libeled someone, and people have been suing newspapers for centuries. McDonald's can't control what people say in their restaurants, but Twitter can control what people say on Twitter and there are laws covering libel which they need to follow. 'But it's the internet' is not an acceptable defence. That's like saying when TV became popular, people should have been allowed to slander whoever they like on TV and get away with it just because the medium was new...

Anyway, the council aren't suing Twitter, they have requested the user's details to be handed over. IIRC you can't sue an American company for allowing other people to say things on their services like you can over here.



Twitter is only mainstream because the media kept banging on about it all the time! It would still be the preserve of a few million geeks otherwise.

Except TV could be easily regulated. If you come down heavy on Twitter, another network would grow where people could openly discuss whatever they wanted.

Social networks are NOT media. It is the equivalent of a group of friends talking around a table. Just because it's written down, does not make it media!

Twitter is a medium of mass communication. These are collectively known as the media.

Anyway, that isn't the point. If the offending comment is written down then it's libel. The form in which it is published is irrelevant, whether you write it down on a post-it note and stick it on the office noticeboard, write it on a piece of paper and put it in a bottle or type it on Twitter. It's still libel.

But it's the person that wrote it down who is libel, not Twitter, in the same way you can't sue Tesco if somebody wrote it down on a piece of their Value paper.

Anyway, this is off topic really.

That is why the council are suing the person who wrote it down.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/864706-council-takes-twitter-to-us-court-for-details-of-uk-users-in-libel-case



If Twitter were based in the UK they could sue Twitter because the law here is different. Why do you think broadcasters are so cautious about what people say on their shows?

Don't roll your eyes please. It's very condescending and quite hypocritical considering just a few posts earlier you were arguing that Twitter can be held responsible:



It was also reported that Giggs was planning to sue Twitter.


So no, my comments weren't stupid so an eye-rolling emoticon isn't appreciated.

That was before I remembered libel laws differ between the US and the UK.

If you were following the conversation properly you could have worked this out yourself.



Am I bovvered?

I may be many things, but clairvoyant isn't one of them. You edited your post whilst I was posting mine where you mentioned the different libel laws, so yes I was following the conversation perfectly competently, thank you.



I'm going to leave this now because I don't want to be accused of causing one of those threads which ends up with two users arguing with each other. All I'd say Chie is just look at the way you speak to some people on this forum. Often it's far from friendly.

http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forums/post710110#post-710110



I posted the above on Tuesday.



Being tarred as a BBC-bashing Daily Heil reader by prejudgemental morons isn't very pleasant either.