# Twitter Defamation



## goosebump (20 Apr 2020)

I recently made a "mean" remark to a well known person with significant media profile on Twitter. They responded by tweeting about me, in which:

- They made a wildly inaccurate claim that presented me in a very poor light
- They tagged my company (a publicly listed company with several thousand employees)
- They tagged the CEO of my company

The following day the CEO, having seen the tweet, contacted my boss and told him to tell me not to engage with this person on Twitter again, because this person was a friend of theirs. Please note that I have never referred to my employment or employer on Twitter. It is not in my profile. The person looked me up on LinkedIn. They have 100k+ followers.

I contacted several solicitors about this.

Two of them came back to me and said the action was defamatory, but there was no guarantee I could win a case, and that I would have to accept 50/50 odds.
A third (who seemed a bit odd) told me I shouldn't be annoying people on Twitter ( I ignored him ).

Of the former two, one indicated that he had a barrister interested in the case. I didn't hear from him for several weeks. He then got back to me to say the barrister hadn't responded, but he now had another barrister involved. That was 3 weeks ago, and I haven't heard anything. I emailed looking for an update last week, but got no reply.

This week I tried a few more defamation solicitors. One got back with a 1 liner: we are unable to help you. No reply from the others.

Can anyone give me any advice here? I have a good job and good income and have no difficulty in paying legal fees. I have said this to all the solicitors.

I keep reading about people going to High Court because they were called a name by a bus driver or thrown out of pub. My reputation with my employer, my CEO and my boss has been seriously impaired, and I can't seem to get any help. I'm not looking for a pay out. I just want this person to correct their tweet, apologise and inform my employer.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> A third (who seemed a bit odd) told me I shouldn't be annoying people on Twitter ( I ignored him ).



Odd? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## goosebump (20 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Odd? Seems perfectly reasonable to me.


He told me that I was in the wrong. He didn't know what Twitter was (I asked him).


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Apr 2020)

He does not need to know what Twitter is. You should not be annoying people on Twitter or anywhere else. 

If you do, you will get back what you deserve.

Learn your lesson and move on.

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (20 Apr 2020)

So let me get this straight...

You made mean comment about someone famous via Twitter. This person then replied with a mean comment and tagged the company that you work for and its CEO. The CEO advised you, indirectly, that you should not engage with the celebrity via Twitter.

And you want to sue the celebrity?


----------



## becky (20 Apr 2020)

You have been told not to engage with the, "well known person" again. Your managers are very understanding despite not knowing what 'twitter' is. 

Social media is new territory for HR and a beast that will need to be dealt with. 

I work in HR. If if your line manager/CEO wanted something like this to use against you, they would have. 

What I'm saying is they really took no notice but asked you not to add anything that might add to the fire.  In my opinions seeking legal advise from several sources will add to the fire. 

Your managers did not say it was a disciplinary issue. In the future it will be, if it suits. College students are now being given advised how to conduct themselves on social media. 

You say you have a 'good job and income'. Keep your job and stop wasting your income.

Set up a new twitter. 

I  have a work twitter where I do the licks, sorry likes. 

I never use my work phone for stuff like this. 

I never use my personal phone for work related stuff ie: commenting on social media during working hours. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Baby boomer (21 Apr 2020)

Defamation is a sport for the very rich or the very poor.  The very rich can afford to lose.  The very poor have nothing to lose.  You, on the other hand, have a good job and income.  Unless it is a very good job indeed, well into six-figure territory, you can't afford the risk of loss.


----------



## Bronte (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> He told me that I was in the wrong. He didn't know what Twitter was (I asked him).


Can I have the name of that solicitor please, sounds like a sensible chap. Particularly as he doesn’t know what Twatter is. And no I did not misspell Twatter.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> A third (who seemed a bit odd) told me I shouldn't be annoying people on Twitter





goosebump said:


> One got back with a 1 liner: we are unable to help you.






becky said:


> What I'm saying is they (my employers)  really took no notice but asked you not to add anything that might add to the fire.





goosebump said:


> Can anyone give me any advice here?



It seems to me that you are already surrounded by reasonable people and good advisors. 

Brendan


----------



## vandriver (21 Apr 2020)

Your username on Twitter makes you identifiable in real life?
You didn't do it here(unless you're Mr Goosebumps),why do it there?


----------



## huskerdu (21 Apr 2020)

If your primary concern is your reputation, why do you think taking a case against this person will improve it ? 

The "celebrity" is likely to defend the action, putting all the attention on your original tweet i.e He started it and you will come out looking worse. This might make the papers if it is a slow news day .


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> So let me get this straight...
> 
> You made mean comment about someone famous via Twitter. This person then replied with a mean comment and tagged the company that you work for and its CEO.



The celebrity did not make a "mean" tweet. They claimed that I did a very specific thing, which I can demonstrably prove I did not do.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Apr 2020)

What do you want to achieve?

Financial recompense;
The tweet taken down;
Both.

Otherwise @becky has a point. If you feel the need to engage a lot on twitter, then do it under a different identity. Don't get me wrong, I really love twitter, but I have a pseudonymous account and never tweet. Twitter is a bear pit and if you engage a lot there is too much scope for it to spill over badly into personal and work life.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

becky said:


> You have been told not to engage with the, "well known person" again. Your managers are very understanding despite not knowing what 'twitter' is.






becky said:


> Your managers did not say it was a disciplinary issue. In the future it will be, if it suits. College students are now being given advised how to conduct themselves on social media.



What I do in my private life, outside business hours, is of no concern to my employer. My employer has already acknowledge that they shouldn't have intervened. It was a knee jerk reaction.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> What do you want to achieve?
> 
> Financial recompense;
> The tweet taken down;
> ...



Twitter being a bear pit does not make it legal to use it to defame people.

I have already been told by 2 solicitors that the action by the other party was defamatory and actionable.

I was asking for advice on securing legal assistance. I was not looking for actual legal advise from AAM, contrary to some of the replies here.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

huskerdu said:


> If your primary concern is your reputation, why do you think taking a case against this person will improve it ?
> 
> The "celebrity" is likely to defend the action, putting all the attention on your original tweet i.e He started it and you will come out looking worse. This might make the papers if it is a slow news day .



Not looking for amateur legal advice here, but for what it's worth, the celebrity claimed I committed a specific act, which paints me in a very poor light. I did not commit this act, and I can prove I did not commit this act. I have no fear of any further attention being drawn to the tweet.


----------



## huskerdu (21 Apr 2020)

You have contacted a number of solicitors.
Most have not replied or given you a negative reply.
Two have said that you have a 50/50 chance of success but have not shown a huge amount of enthusiam for taking the case ( evidenced by the fact that they are slow to reply).

If you are asking us how to get a solicitor to take the case, then I dont know how to help except to say that it doesnt sound promising.

Also, what was Twitters reply when you reported the tweet ?


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

huskerdu said:


> You have contacted a number of solicitors.
> Most have not replied or given you a negative reply.
> Two have said that you have a 50/50 chance of success but have not shown a huge amount of enthusiam for taking the case ( evidenced by the fact that they are slow to reply).
> 
> ...



I originally contacted 2 solicitors. 

Both got back to me within 4 hours. The first wanted to meet me in the Four Courts the following day. They then postponed that meeting because they wanted to include a barrister at the same sit down. There was absolutely no lack of enthusiasm. They asked me to send them a dossier with all the information. They reviewed that. No change in their position. Said they couldn't get in touch with the barrister since the lockdown, and was now talking to another barrister. Then, silence.

The second was similar. Called me back immediately and said they were bringing matter to attention of partner. They then told me partner had recently been involved in car crash, and had limited capacity to take on new cases, but if I wanted to proceed, I had actionable case but no guarantees. I have asked for a meeting (which I would pay for). No response.

These two ^^ were solicitors who specialise in defamation.

The guy who told me I shouldn't be annoying people on Twitter was a guy I was recommended to my a friend, who doesn't actually deal in defamation.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> I have already been told by 2 solicitors that the action by the other party was defamatory and actionable.L



“Lawyers tells potential client that he or she ‘has a case’ shocker!”

You have been and still are embarrassing yourself and you will learn a very expensive lesson if you pursue this nonsense.

The adults in the room seem to be the company CEO and your immediate boss. Follow their guidance and forget about this absolute nonsense. April 1st was weeks ago.


----------



## Steven Barrett (21 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It seems to me that you are already surrounded by reasonable people and good advisors.
> 
> Brendan



Ignore them all!! They aren't providing the answer the OP wants


----------



## Steven Barrett (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> *What I do in my private life, outside business hours, is of no concern to my employer*. My employer has already acknowledge that they shouldn't have intervened. It was a knee jerk reaction.



Absolute nonsense. You should check your contract of employment on this. 

In this name calling on twitter, I am beginning to wonder what this person said back to you? My guess is something that a dog might do?


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

huskerdu said:


> Also, what was Twitters reply when you reported the tweet ?



One of the solicitors advised me not to request this. They also advised me to send a message to my employer to keep a copy of all internal communication. Which I did, and to which my employer agreed. My employer accepts that what they did was wrong.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

SBarrett said:


> Absolute nonsense. You should check your contract of employment on this.



I did. My employer has already accepted that they shouldn't have intervened, and acknowledge that it was none of their business, and that the other party was in the wrong. They were afraid that I also had a case against them for not fact checking.



SBarrett said:


> In this name calling on twitter, I am beginning to wonder what this person said back to you? My guess is something that a dog might do?



They claimed I did something very, very specific, which I did not do.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Apr 2020)

Have a read [broken link removed]. Like others I really think you should move on here. I don't understand what you are hoping to achieve by taking it further. Is the post still up on Twitter? Why were you advised not to report it to Twitter?


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> “Lawyers tells potential client that he or she ‘has a case’ shocker!”



So you're telling me that the fact they got back to me indicates I don't have a case, while other posters are telling me that the fact they didn't get back to me indicates I don't have a case?


----------



## Steven Barrett (21 Apr 2020)

Ask them to remove the tweet and move on. 

Set up an anonymous account and then tweet to your hearts content


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Have a read [broken link removed]. Like others I really think you should move on here. I don't understand what you are hoping to achieve by taking it further. Is the post still up on Twitter? Why were you advised not to report it to Twitter?


I have already reviewed that site. My claim meets all those criteria. However, that site is obsolete. It contains no contact details.
I believe they wanted the tweet to remain in situ so that it could be reviewed by the barrister in its original context, rather than as a screen grab.


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> I have already reviewed that site. My claim meets all those criteria. However, that site is obsolete. It contains no contact details.
> I believe they wanted the tweet to remain in situ so that it could be reviewed by the barrister in its original context, rather than as a screen grab.


Surely the better outcome here is that the tweet is removed and everyone moves on? Your solicitor wants payment so their interest is in the tweet remaining up there. That is not in your best interest really imho.


----------



## JSnowWinterfell (21 Apr 2020)

I am certain that employers now require their staff members to behave appropriately on social media. The fact the celebrity was able to do a google search and find out details about your job, means that you have allowed that information to be publically available. 

I am interested as to what act they claimed you did that made you appear in a bad light, as you seem to indicate the comment you made wasn't actually mean. 

Interesting that your CEO is friends with this person and has told you indirectly to leave it alone. I think the damage is already done there and I can't see that opinion being changed however this pans out.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Surely the better outcome here is that the tweet is removed and everyone moves on?



How is that a better outcome for me? The tweet has been seen by potentially tens of thousands of people.

It is normal practice that if something inaccurate/defamatory is published, a correct and apology is published later.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

JSnowWinterfell said:


> I am certain that employers now require their staff members to behave appropriately on social media.



I did not behave inappropriately.
There is no disciplinary/contractual issue here with my employer.
My employer has acknowledged they should not have reacted.


----------



## Leo (21 Apr 2020)

I'd agree with the others on here, if the defamation specialists aren't knocking your door down to take on the case, there's likely a good reason for that. 

From a neutral observer, you chose to subject someone to very public abuse and now you claim to be the victim when they didn't respond well. 

I really hope we don't get to a point where normal practice sees bullies get compensation or apologies.


----------



## Tickle (21 Apr 2020)

@goosebump , can you post a link to the tweet in question? It would be easier to advise.-


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

JSnowWinterfell said:


> Interesting that your CEO is friends with this person and has told you indirectly to leave it alone. I think the damage is already done there and I can't see that opinion being changed however this pans out.



This is the legal definition of defamation.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> I'd agree with the others on here, if the defamation specialists aren't knocking your door down to take on the case, there's likely a good reason for that.



You haven't read the thread. They were knocking on my door, and then once the lock down started, they stopped.



Leo said:


> From a neutral observer, you chose to subject someone to very public abuse and now you claim to be the victim when they didn't respond well.
> 
> I really hope we don't get to a point where normal practice sees bullies get compensation or apologies.



I didn't abuse anyone.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Tickle said:


> @goosebump , can you post a link to the tweet in question? It would be easier to advise



I can't, as that would expose the parties involved, and until such time as I secure legal advise, or decide to leave it, I am afraid this might undermine things. One of the solicitors advised me to keep the matter to myself.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> They asked me to send them a dossier with all the information. They reviewed that. No change in their position. Said they couldn't get in touch with the barrister since the lockdown, and was now talking to another barrister. *Then, silence.*
> 
> The second was similar. Called me back immediately and said they were bringing matter to attention of partner. They then told me partner had recently been involved in car crash, and had limited capacity to take on new cases, but if I wanted to proceed, I had actionable case but no guarantees. I have asked for a meeting (which I would pay for). *No response.*



Let's look at this from a different angle.

Let's assume that you have been defamed and that it is serious. 

You will need a top class legal team to win this battle.  They are not easy to find.

I have been involved in really good cases that were wrecked by solicitors and barristers. 

Brendan


----------



## Tickle (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> *One of the solicitors advised me to keep the matter to myself.*


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Let's look at this from a different angle.
> 
> Let's assume that you have been defamed and that it is serious.
> 
> ...



I just want someone to write a letter for me to the other party, asking them to substantiate their claim or otherwise retract it publicly. 

If they refuse, I would probably leave it at that.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> I was asking for advice on securing legal assistance. I was not looking for actual legal advise from AAM, contrary to some of the replies here.



vvvv Actually you came looking for non-specific advice vvv



goosebump said:


> Can anyone give me any advice here?



You've got useful legal and non-legal advice here. Use it wisely!

PS: you didn't answer my question either.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> What do you want to achieve?
> 
> Financial recompense;
> The tweet taken down;
> Both.


----------



## Leo (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> I didn't abuse anyone.



You admitted in your very first port that you posted something 'mean' publicly. I'm afraid that is abuse, it has received lots of coverage in recent years regarding a few high-profile celebrity suicides where such online abuse has been a factor.


----------



## Sunny (21 Apr 2020)

You are even contradicting yourself. You started off by saying that your reputation was seriously damaged with your employer. But you then state you were simply told not to engage on twitter with the individual. You then say that your employer admitted they were wrong to even request that. So how on earth was your reputation damaged? 99% of people know what twitter is. It is a cesspool that contains much of the worst of human behaviour. It is not a forum for truth and justice in the majority of cases. Your employer obviously understands that or they would have taken the allegation seriously. You have well known people on twitter being called names, abused, accused of doing things on a daily basis. And they all have bigger and more public reputations than you. Do you think they all rush to the High Court? Just move on with your life. Get off twitter or stop engaging with well known celebrities if you are going to take offense. The person who included your employer on the tweet back to you is not worth even dealing with. Spend thousands for what? An apology from someone you don't know for something that no-one apart from you has taken seriously. IF you have that much money to spend, there are plenty of charities including many dealing with online bullying that would be a lot more grateful for the money rather than a highly paid barrister fighting a nonsense case between two grown adults.


----------



## Peanuts20 (21 Apr 2020)

Why did you say something mean about the celebrity in the first place?. I truely never understand why people do that. The fact that the celeb did not take it lying down- good for them. 

Let's assume you sue, you'll be made look an idiot in court, even if you win (which is far from guaranteed) your reputation will be damaged, your employer will get dragged into it, you run the risk of losing and incurring massive costs and your future career prospects will be negatively affected, 

so, is it worth having your name in the papers and running up 6 figure legal bills which you might get back (but only might) because someone told you off? 

You've learnt a lesson here, Twitter is not a conversation in the pub with your mates


----------



## David1234 (21 Apr 2020)

Your behaviour post making the twitter remark in work will probably have impacted your employers view of you more than the initial mean comment. Your employer will of course not explicitly say this but it may impact their decisions in the future when considering your career advancement opportunities. Your employer has already been linked to this story, it is quite obvious that they do not wish for it to be taken any further.

You can of course continue down the legal path that could cost you thousands with no results. Why would you want to spend money getting a solicitor to write a letter. What is ideal outcome from this for you?

Listen to the masses and forget about it and don't post mean comments on social media.


----------



## tallpaul (21 Apr 2020)

OP, you come across as very narcissistic. You did wrong initially, have been called out and publicly shamed, and have taken umbrage. Perhaps look at your own actions first before seeking retribution from others. As others have said, I would also assume your reputation within your company would be at a low point. 

Stay off Twitter. I cannot think of one, single positive benefit that it brings to anyone or anything. If it disappeared in the morning, would the world be any worse off??


----------



## JSnowWinterfell (21 Apr 2020)

Is this a case of you want to prove to your CEO that you didn't do what was said? As others have pointed out if the CEO thought it had any validity they would have involved HR given the company was specifically mentioned in the dispute.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (21 Apr 2020)

Tickle said:


> Who is the celebrity in question?



You realy are itching/tickling to see who the celebrity is and what the tweet entailed!


----------



## JSnowWinterfell (21 Apr 2020)

tallpaul said:


> OP, you come across as very narcissistic. You did wrong initially, have been called out and publicly shamed, and have taken umbrage. Perhaps look at your own actions first before seeking retribution from others. As others have said, I would also assume your reputation within your company would be at a low point.
> 
> Stay off Twitter. I cannot think of one, single positive benefit that it brings to anyone or anything. If it disappeared in the morning, would the world be any worse off??



Twitter gives people a public voice, it is just a shame that for the most point what they have to say is not very useful. 

If you craft who you follow you can get access to good quality information quickly, however if you just want to use it to berate people it probably is not for you.


----------



## Tickle (21 Apr 2020)

PaddyBloggit said:


> You realy are itching/tickling to see who the celebrity is and what the tweet entailed!



It's out there on the internet and the OP is dancing around trying to convince everyone that he has a case. Impossible for anyone to agree with the OP without knowing what was said. It's out there for all to see online. Either it's defamation or it's not. Us seeing it isn't going to change the facts, but it would help to formulate an opinion of the situation.


----------



## JSnowWinterfell (21 Apr 2020)

PaddyBloggit said:


> You realy are itching/tickling to see who the celebrity is and what the tweet entailed!



Assuming it is an Irish celebrity there are not that many accounts with > 100k followers. If one really wanted to find out the information is out there.


----------



## tallpaul (21 Apr 2020)

I would argue that giving people a public voice through the medium of Twitter is not a positive. Twitter is toxic and it allows so-called keyboard warriors to indulge in their most basest instincts. Not normally having to face the consequences of one's actions has allowed people to be rude, vulgar and downright unpleasant with general impunity.

(Un) fortunately for the OP, they do have to face the consequences of such actions and they don't like it. They might think twice in future, so some lesson might have been learned.


----------



## Sunny (21 Apr 2020)

Tickle said:


> Help me narrow it down



I think the celebrity is Brendan. I think Brendan got offended because the OP said shorting Tesla was a terrible decision. Brendan responded by finding out that the OP worked for a major car dealership which specialises in monster trucks and accused him of owning a Tesla electric car and let the CEO know. The OP was shocked and disgusted and here we are...……..


----------



## Futurelookin (21 Apr 2020)

I seem to be alone in having a certain sympathy for the OP. I use twitter daily and have done since 2012. I have used it for work (via a work account, in the name of the business) and personally. They are in no way linked. I don't tweet or extremely rarely. I have < 1,000 followers. I follow approximately 3,000 people. I use it because it's interesting and it exposes me to ideas and individuals I would not otherwise meet or hear. I find it equal parts genius and am constantly amazed by the ingenuity and wit of people and hugely frustrating due to the professional outrage, bad faith and trolling. 
Despite having never tweeted once on the subject of abortion, I found myself hilariously enough on the 'repeal shield' with many ordinary and extremely high profile people blocking me. People seek out echo chambers and attribute points of view to those on the opposite spectrum of each subject which are entire nonsense and defamatory or 'reaching' in the extreme. 
It's not called the 'Hellsite' for nothing. It's entirely normal for people to be called child abuse apologists, nazis, facists and other awful accusations quite over and above the normal 'moron' or 'labour scum' or whatever you're having yourself. Twitter is ineffective on dealing with the huge volume of complaints they receive and are not consistent in the administration of suspensions etc. 

All of the above contribute to why I use the site to listen, inform and entertain myself without engaging directly. So if for example, the OP was told they support rape culture, for example, I could absolutely see why they would be upset. If they were incorrectly accused of a specific crime, for example pedophilia, I would have huge sympathy. These online accusations have in real life led to vigilante activity where the wrong person was targeted. Of course I don't know what he/she was accused of but the point remains - people feel like online social media is different but it has real life consequences for people and the audience reach is immense. A resolution is rarely achievable from a fairness point of view. Add into this the very twitter phenomenon of 'Twitter do your thing' where a tweet is screenshotted or shared and people are encouraged to pile on and target the poster via their employer or landlord or whoever to finish them and real, long lasting harm is done without any of the checks and balances which would occur in the real world of allegations. 

Of course all of this supposes that the accusation for the OP was a serious one but the principle remains. Twitter, and social media in general is absolutely lawless to all intents and purposes and many, including Caroline Flack have found to their detriment.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Tickle said:


> It's out there on the internet and the OP is dancing around trying to convince everyone that he has a case. Impossible for anyone to agree with the OP without knowing what was said. It's out there for all to see online. Either it's defamation or it's not. Us seeing it isn't going to change the facts, but it would help to formulate an opinion of the situation.



I'm not asking for an opinion on my case (not that this is stopping anyone from offering it). Why anyone would think I would be looking for complex legal advice on AAM is beyond me.

I have been told by various solicitors that I have a case.

My difficulty arises from not being able to engage legal assistance.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

JSnowWinterfell said:


> Is this a case of you want to prove to your CEO that you didn't do what was said?



Yes, and the thousands of other people who saw the tweet.



JSnowWinterfell said:


> As others have pointed out if the CEO thought it had any validity they would have involved HR given the company was specifically mentioned in the dispute.



It is possible for someone to have a poor view of you without being able to discipline you.


----------



## Tickle (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> Why anyone would think I would be looking for... legal advice on AAM is beyond me.





also goosebump said:


> Can anyone give me any advice here?


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Futurelookin said:


> Of course all of this supposes that the accusation for the OP was a serious one but the principle remains. *Twitter, and social media in general is absolutely lawless* to all intents and purposes and many, including Caroline Flack have found to their detriment.



Twitter is not exempt from defamation law.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Tickle said:


> Can anyone give me any advice here?



I asked for advice about contacting solicitors.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> I asked for advice about contacting solicitors.



But of all the posters on Askaboutmoney, I would say that you have the most experience of contacting solicitors? 

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> I asked for advice about contacting solicitors.



My advice is not to contact anymore solicitors.

Instead you should take a long hard look at your own behavior and how you’ve embarrassed yourself and continue to do so.

Apologise to your employer and blame it on the stress of the Covid-19 crisis. Then you might have some chance of moving back from the “target for marginalisation and managing out” box into the “might have a future here” box.

Honestly, part of me thinks that this thread is a wind-up to lighten everyone’s mood because of Covid-19; I’ve never heard the like of it.


----------



## goosebump (21 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But of all the posters on Askaboutmoney, I would say that you have the most experience of contacting solicitors?
> 
> Brendan



That certainly appears to be the case. I had hoped that perhaps some solicitors frequent the "askaboutlaw" topic, in the way trades people frequent DIY topics. Perhaps not.


----------



## Sunny (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> That certainly appears to be the case. I had hoped that perhaps some solicitors frequent the "askaboutlaw" topic, in the way trades people frequent DIY topics. Perhaps not.



They do but they tend to have better things to do than engage in nonsense. The rest of us are not so smart.....

I am sure someone will be happy to take thousands of euro off you eventually......


----------



## jpd (21 Apr 2020)

Well, that's certainly passed a few minutes, if not hours, of people's time - has life come down to this now?


----------



## Leo (21 Apr 2020)

goosebump said:


> My difficulty arises from not being able to engage legal assistance.



As before, the fact that they're not engaging may tell you all you need to know. Legal services and the courts are still operating.


----------



## Sue Ellen (21 Apr 2020)

Hi goosebumps,

Its obvious that this whole matter is causing you grave concern and therefore stopping you from stepping back from the whole situation and looking at it from a sensible point of view.  As you have seen here most people would say 'let it go'.

Life is too short for this type of stress and it looks as if you go down the legal route the stress will only get a lot worse.  It may further affect your job, certainly your finances and possibly your health in the long term.

If you heard tomorrow that you or yours had a serious case of Covid how important would this problem be then.


----------



## vandriver (21 Apr 2020)

I doubt thousands of people have read it with anything more than a fleeting interest.
*However,*beware of the Streisand effect


----------



## Steven Barrett (21 Apr 2020)

vandriver said:


> I doubt thousands of people have read it with anything more than a fleeting interest.
> *However,*beware of the Streisand effect



Thank you!!!!! I was thinking of that reading through this but couldn't remember the celebrity! No wonder Bette Midler searches weren't showing up the desired results


----------



## DeeKie (22 Apr 2020)

Goosebumps, legal directories like Legal500  and Chambers list the top specialists in the country in specific areas. Contact the defamation expert listed there. Every large firm lists a partner who deals with this topic.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (22 Apr 2020)

DeeKie said:


> Goosebumps, legal directories like Legal500  and Chambers list the top specialists in the country in specific areas. Contact the defamation expert listed there. Every large firm lists a partner who deals with this topic.



With any luck, a quasi bidding-war might start with Arthur Cox, A&L Goodbody, McCannFitzGerald, Matheson, Mason Hayes & Curran and William Fry all vying to take this one on.

For what it’s worth, my own sense is that Lionel Hutz, Attorney-At-Law, might be the best hope of success:


----------



## tallpaul (22 Apr 2020)

Yeah but maybe he/she shouldn't have said something 'mean' in the first place and they wouldn't have found themselves in their current predicament!!! People in glasshouses and all that...

If the OP goes to court, perhaps the opinions of the 'jury' on AAM so far might dissuade them of the likelihood of success...


----------



## DeeKie (23 Apr 2020)

Ok. You can all double down on the OP. You all know better?! But the OP asked about how to get legal representation. Everybody deserves to have someone qualified advise them on the law. It is not fair if no one will take his case. I don’t necessarily agree with OP but I think people deserve an answer to questions that they legitimately raise in a forum like this without a lot of ridicule.
We do not know what was said, the facts are not available. What is interesting is the assumption that the reactions of others are paramount because they are potential defendants who are more powerful/ wealthy. Sure the employer has the balance of power, and so disturbing the attitude of the employer to the employee is potentially risky, but that is not to say that the employer’s view should be validated and upheld in every circumstance just because of that power differential. First work out if the op is correct as a point of law. Then decide whether commercial/ risk outweighs taking the action.

The advantage of going to a lawyer is that they will tell you, plainly and coldly, your chances of success. They will disabuse you of any notions that you have that you are entitled to your desired outcome.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Apr 2020)

Really?

I think that’s extraordinarily naive. If the OP meets the wrong lawyer, he or she could end up incurring significant costs unnecessarily. And it’s just reality that acting the goat outside of work can impact of one’s worklife. 

If I worked for Facebook and somehow got in a punch-up in a bar with Mark Zuckerberg’s brother-in-law in a bar, do you think that would bode well or badly for my future career prospects?


----------



## elacsaplau (23 Apr 2020)

Who knows , Gordon

Maybe Mark Z can't stand his b-i-l?!  

Personally, I'm struck with the lack of empathy for the OP.


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Apr 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> Personally, I'm struck with the lack of empathy for the OP.


I think most of us are trying to help the OP by offering advice which might not be what they want to hear but which we believe is in their best interest. I do sympathise with the OP and as SueEllen said it is clearly upsetting them. However pursuing this may end up upsetting them even more and they may well be overstating the amount of people who a) saw the tweet, b) paid any attention to it or gave it any credibility c) know the OP.
I do agree with DeeKie that there are some posts on here ridiculing the OP which are not helpful but such is the nature of anonymous forums. However the OP themselves doesn't sound like a stranger to mean comments either.


----------



## elacsaplau (23 Apr 2020)

Apologies, Ceist Beag……..tá an cheart agat!

I should have written the lack of empathy for the OP *by some posters! *[I guess what prompted this comment is that some have mentioned that Twitter is a bit of a cesspit and it seems that some comments here would be better suited to Twitter?!]


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (23 Apr 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> [I guess what prompted this comment is that some have mentioned that Twitter is a bit of a cesspit and it seems that some comments here would be better suited to Twitter?!]



Actually this is more civilised than 90% of replies to an average tweet!



Ceist Beag said:


> they may well be overstating the amount of people who a) saw the tweet, b) paid any attention to it or gave it any credibility c) know the OP.



This is very true. The only person giving this any thought any more is the OP.

Twitter's search function is obscure and difficult to use, I think deliberately. I sometimes go searching for an old tweet but can't find it as I don't recall the precise twitter handle or wording.


----------



## Sunny (23 Apr 2020)

Grown man acts like child and makes a mean comment on social media to some celebrity.
Grown man/celebrity reacts like child and responds and makes sure person's employer sees it.
Employer says stop engaging on twitter on that person and moves on with running the company.
Initial grown man who started all this refuses to let it go as his honor has been slighted
The grown man has decided that after consulting multiple solicitors who either tell him to forget it or refuse to engage even if they thought he had a case because like most people, they realise that this isn't worth the effort.
Instead of trying to get twitter or the celebrity to remove the tweet or even remove his own twitter profile, the grown man leaves everything all up there so that the lawyers (when he finds one) will be able to see it.
Everyone is pointing out spending thousands on some sort of legal action is pointless. What the celebrity did to he OP was wrong. It was ignorant. It was childish. It was also dangerous. But the OP is at risk of losing sight of what is important by hassling their employer to admit they were wrong to interfere, stressing about it and then looking to spend thousands of euro on protecting their good name when I am willing to bet that no-one even remembers the tweet and cares even less. Just a

Musk called someone a child abuser on Twitter and was let off. People and companies with much higher profiles than the OP are abused and defamed every single day. I have seen people accusing our politicians of personally causing the deaths of people, of taking bribes and everything else under the sun. Nobody unless you are Gemma O Doherty runs to the lawyers. People who get personally insulted by what is written on sites like Twitter and even AAM by people not even using their real names need to stop engaging with others on social media.


----------



## galway_blow_in (23 Apr 2020)

Twitter are notorious for tolerating the most egregious smears 

OP, the reactions here are harsh, but you're best forget about it, doubt you're employer is too worked up about it


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Apr 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> Who knows , Gordon
> 
> Maybe Mark Z can't stand his b-i-l?!
> 
> Personally, I'm struck with the lack of empathy for the OP.



Perhaps the Covid-19 crisis has reduced people’s tolerance for frivolous nonsense and ridiculous behavior?

Perhaps 2 months ago, people would say “aw, poor Johnny, would you like a hug and to hear that everyone’s dancing to the wrong step except you?”.

I think that now it’s more a case of a gentle slap across the face with the words “cop yourself on”.


----------



## galway_blow_in (23 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Really?
> 
> I think that’s extraordinarily naive. If the OP meets the wrong lawyer, he or she could end up incurring significant costs unnecessarily. And it’s just reality that acting the goat outside of work can impact of one’s worklife.
> 
> If I worked for Facebook and somehow got in a punch-up in a bar with Mark Zuckerberg’s brother-in-law in a bar, do you think that would bode well or badly for my future career prospects?



Yes because that hypothetical is a fair comparison


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Apr 2020)

galway_blow_in said:


> Yes because that hypothetical is a fair comparison



The employee works for a large company with thousands of employees. He or she has gotten into conflict publicly with a personal friend of the CEO. The employee is a long way removed from the CEO and doesn’t know him or her. 

Whatever way you want to look at it, it doesn’t bode well.

It is perhaps more analagous to me having a shouting match publicly in a bar with Zuckerberg’s brother-in-law and me working for Facebook.


----------



## Steven Barrett (23 Apr 2020)

elacsaplau said:


> I should have written t*he lack of empathy for the OP* *by some posters! *



I think that is due to him actually starting it. This person (not even sure if they are a celebrity, they have a media profile, it could be a youtuber!) wouldn't even know who goosebump is and wouldn't have said anything if he hadn't started it. 

And I wonder how many people saw the reply, it's not as if everyone reads all the comments. And even further, how many people actually cared? 

The lesson is, if you are going to troll on twitter, do it through an anonymous account!!


----------



## galway_blow_in (23 Apr 2020)

Sunny said:


> Grown man acts like child and makes a mean comment on social media to some celebrity.
> Grown man/celebrity reacts like child and responds and makes sure person's employer sees it.
> Employer says stop engaging on twitter on that person and moves on with running the company.
> Initial grown man who started all this refuses to let it go as his honor has been slighted
> ...






Gordon Gekko said:


> The employee works for a large company with thousands of employees. He or she has gotten into conflict publicly with a personal friend of the CEO. The employee is a long way removed from the CEO and doesn’t know him or her.
> 
> Whatever way you want to look at it, it doesn’t bode well.
> 
> It is perhaps more analagous to me having a shouting match publicly in a bar with Zuckerberg’s brother-in-law and me working for Facebook.



while less spurious than your previous analogy , a social media scrap is hardly equivalent to a screaming match in public

well known public personalities receive snide and insulting remarks on twitter every day of the week


----------



## Gordon Gekko (23 Apr 2020)

galway_blow_in said:


> while less spurious than your previous analogy , a social media scrap is hardly equivalent to a screaming match in public
> 
> well known public personalities receive snide and insulting remarks on twitter every day of the week



That’s the point, it is!

People need to realise that.


----------



## galway_blow_in (23 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> That’s the point, it is!
> 
> People need to realise that.



No it isnt , dont be absurd


----------



## Leo (23 Apr 2020)

galway_blow_in said:


> a social media scrap is hardly equivalent to a screaming match in public



True, a public screaming match doesn't leave a permanent public record viewable by millions!


----------



## galway_blow_in (23 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> True, a public screaming match doesn't leave a permanent public record viewable by millions!




like i said , twitter scraps happen all the time ,  OP hasnt revealed what he said but claims the other side defamed him in return

i wouldnt bother pursuing it personally but the rush to hang him is slightly tedious in its level of pompous  condemnation

the amount of monocles which have been dropped is off the charts


----------



## Leo (23 Apr 2020)

galway_blow_in said:


> i wouldnt bother pursuing it personally but the rush to hang him is slightly tedious in its level of pompous condemnation



Many have interpreted the OP's classification of their own comment as 'mean' to equate to abuse or bullying, and so feel condemnation is appropriate based on the limited information shared. 



galway_blow_in said:


> the amount of monocles which have been dropped is off the charts



Comments like the above, and referring to other posters here as pompous puts you a long way off the moral high ground.


----------



## torblednam (23 Apr 2020)

Leo said:


> Many have interpreted the OP's classification of their own comment as 'mean' to equate to abuse or bullying, and so feel condemnation is appropriate based on the limited information shared.
> 
> Comments like the above, and referring to other posters here as pompous puts you a long way off the moral high ground.



I read the first page or two of this thread a few days ago and only returned to it again today, and I'm finding it all fascinating!

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to describe it as pomposity but I definitely have reservations about the level of presumption and dismissiveness pervading the thread.

People seem to be starting from a position of presuming the OP is unreasonable and/or irrational, rather than reasonable and/or rational. I find that interesting.

Then there seems to be a general presumption from most contributors that the mean comment was something that constituted "abuse" and that therefore the OP was fair game for the response of the unnamed celebrity. When I read the OP what I imagined was along the lines of:
[celeb]: "Look at these homemade scones I made while on lockdown!"
[OP]: "They look about as wooden and unpalatable as your performance in XXXX!" (Hypothetically the celeb is an actor!)
Something a bit pointed or sharp, mean _spirited_ rather than actually abusive...

Needless to say, nobody knows where precisely on the rather subjective spectrum of meanness / abusiveness the OP's comment was, because the OP hasn't given any further information, and for good reason. But I don't see why them referring to it as "mean" should equate it to abuse or bullying.

If one presumes the OP is a reasonable and rational person then one has to wonder at what the defamatory response must have been, to engender such a desire for rectification on the part of the OP. But it appears that the majority here (starting from a presumption of the OP being unreasonable) don't seem willing / able to recognise that a defamatory tweet that is likely to have been read by more people than read most local / regional newspapers, could be quite harmful to a person.

Since the OP's employer has acknowledged that they had no business engaging with him on the matter, I don't see why he can't / shouldn't engage a solicitor to write on his behalf to the person in question asking for the offending tweet to be remedied in whatever way might be best. But then I'm making presumptions too - that the OP is a reasonable person and that when they describe something as a wildly inaccurate claim portraying them in a very poor light, then that is a fair description.

An intriguing thread all round...!


----------



## Fella (24 Apr 2020)

You'll always find someone online that will take the bait, you started it - been mean, maybe they reacted wrongly. But you can't get your time back you've wasted on this and you don't seem to have learned. 

My advice save yourself years of wasted time by deleting social media, this is not important no one will remember this especially with all the covid19 stuff.

Just have a little think about this, imagine a child coming to you and saying "dad that boy over there is telling everyone I'm xxxx, you'd say" did you say something to him first?" 
Yes , well you won't do that again.

Move on, get a hobbie. This is a bit embarrassing unless your 12.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Apr 2020)

I think that the OP's question has been answered at this stage.

Brendan


----------

