Think before you Tweet: a cautionary tale

Peaches Geldof is potentially in some very hot water indeed.

The daughter of Boomtown Rat Sir Bob, Peaches is facing a potential contempt of court for tweeting the names of two women who allowed Ian Watkins, former singer with the band Lost Prophets, to abuse their children.

The act of tweeting these women’s names to her 160,000 followers is enough that Geldof could find herself facing up to two years in prison, should the Crown Prosecution Service opt to make an example of her and use the full extent of the law.

While you can understand Geldof’s actions - as a mother herself, the shocking actions of Watkins must raise particular levels of bile – they are still in contravention of the law.   

The victims of sexual crimes are granted anonymity for life under the British judicial system. The protection of their identities is sacrosanct and extends to the prevention of publication of any details that could lead to the identification of these people.  Clearly, naming these women could quite easily lead to the identification of the children.

Peaches Geldof

Far from being a stand-alone incident, this is just the latest in a string of examples of people – both celebrities and ordinary Janes and Joes like you or I – who have broken the law by making often flippant or emotionally-fuelled remarks on social media.

With an increasing number of people taking to social media, the risk of poorly worded or ill-considered tweets being in contravention of the law is on the rise.

Take, for instance, Sally Bercow the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow.  Mrs Bercow landed herself at the centre of a litigation brought by Lord Alastair McAlpine through her ‘irresponsible use of twitter’.

Her tweet was, of course, subsequently retweeted by some of her 56,000 followers, further spreading the libellous message.

When I was studying for a journalism degree at university, the majority of the second year was given over to provide an understanding of the theory and practice of media law, so I feel comfortable that I’m not going to accidentally defame anyone.

This is, however, clearly not a practical solution to an ongoing problem; people have neither the time nor the inclination to get to grips with the finer points of libel law before sending their first tweets (whether they should is a different conversation for a different time).

Social networks provide us with outlets through which we can broadcast our successes and frustrations and just as in the real world, these often come without the benefit of a filter. 

Particularly in the case of events such as those surrounding Watkins, we can feel that an expression of our anger or frustration across social networks would be no more damaging than to do so with our friends in the pub.

There is an epilogue to this story, featuring another musician called Ian Watkins, although he may be more familiar to many as ‘H’ from the pop band Steps.

A tale of two Watkins. 'H' is on the left. 

Not only has he had to suspend his Twitter account due to the outpouring of misguided abuse from those not careful or willing enough to check that they had the right Ian Watkins, but the US entertainment website E! published his image in error as part of a story on the on-going trial.

The message, therefore, is clear: spare a thought for what you type into that little box on Twitter, because as we are all now publishers so too do we all fall under the auspices of the courts.

This blog was originally written by Dan for the Core Marketing website.