McAlpine v. Bercow case of 2012 was as a result of a complaint from McAlpine following a series of online comments levelled against him. The online comments on Twitter suggested that the plaintiff was a paedophile (Webb et al. 2016). On the 2nd of November 2012, Newsnight, which is a program on BBC Two, connected a senior old-fashioned political figure to sexual abuse claims. The main defendant of the case, Bercow is a high profile personality who has more than five hundred Twitter followers (Rolph 2016). After the Newsnight’s allegation, the online social platform Twitter was buzzing with tweets about the allegations made, and Bercow reportedly tweeted “Why is Lord McAlpine trending?” followed by an emoji of an innocent face (Webb et al. 2016). Fortunately, he got acquitted of the allegations of sexual assault after a period of investigation. Lord McAlpine then threatened a number of Twitter users who had allegedly tarnished his name with legal action. According to McAlpine v. Bercow, (2013), the high profile Twitter users accused included Bercow, Alan Davis and George Monbiot together with BBC and ITV media corporations.
McAlpines’ legal team used the Defamation Act of 2013 to build a case against all the accused parties. Bercow insisted on her innocence for a while even after BBC and ITV apologised and paid the plaintiff an agreed sum of money in damages. Bercow argued that her tweet was innocent and she had no intentions of slandering Lord Alpine’s name. Thus the legal issue in the case was in determining whether Bercow’s tweet was damning to Lord Alpine’s image. At the time that Bercow tweeted, she had more than fifty thousand Twitter followers hence posing the argument that it had more viewership “than many regional newspapers” (McAlpine v. Bercow 2012). Social media platforms are very influential areas for information spread that could potentially reach more people in a short while. Users who have more followers were subject to warnings because of their massive influence on the followers.
The court divided McAlpine v. Bercow trial into two stages at the preliminary hearing of the case. The first stage of the trial would determine whether Bercow’s tweets were defamatory. Thereafter, if the court determined the tweet as insulting, a second process would be done to determine the level of damage caused by the tweet. Justice Tugendhat was the one who oversaw the case (McAlpine v. Bercow 2013). Quoting Jones v Skelton, Mr Justice Tugendhat explained two types of meaning for any text or speech; “a natural and ordinary meaning” and “an innuendo meaning,” (McAlpine v. Bercow 2013). The interpretation of Bercow’s tweet would thus depend on these two meanings.
According to Justice Tugendhat, a natural and ordinary meaning may either be literally interpreted as per the wording or may have an interpretation that does not require facts from external factors not classified under general knowledge (McAlpine v. Bercow 2013). The interpretation of general knowledge was in the context of setting and current events. Tugendhat further defined “innuendo meaning” as an interpretation that can be implied from the shared information only if the audience knows of some other information not classified under general knowledge.
Therefore, the judge ruled that any sensible reader would have known that the added emoji on Bercow’s tweet was sarcastic and devious. According to McAlpine v. Bercow (2013), Justice Tugendhat’s argument on the case was that “There is no sensible reason for including those words in the tweet if they try to elicit the meaning that the defendant simply wants to know the answer to a factual question”. The prior information associated with the tweet is the allegations that Lord McAlpine had sexually assaulted underage boys that were under child-care. Therefore, Bercow’s tweet was interpreted to carry a meaning “to the same effect” (McAlpine v. Bercow 2013). The judge ruled that Bercow’s tweet was “seriously defamatory” since she had already agreed to the fact that the accusations levelled against Lord McAlpine were false and proven so beyond reasonable doubt, hence she was defenceless before the law.
The ruling favoured the plaintiff as Bercow’s tweet was termed defamatory in both its ‘meanings’ as defined by law. A second trial determined the level of damage caused by Bercow’s tweet. The defendant and the plaintiff reached an agreement which was overseen by the court and Bercow agreed to pay for the damages (McAlpine v. Bercow 2013). Bercow was also ordered to make an apology to the plaintiff in open court.
Lord McAlpine presented a strong case against Bercow especially after legally clearing his name from the allegations of sexual assault. The plaintiff’s lawyer strongly presented their case by first establishing that the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff’s innocence in the prior allegations. When the court ruled that Bercow’s tweet was defaming, it was difficult for her defence to come up with a legal response which could help her case (Webb et al. 2016). Also, there were prior case settlements presented in favour of the plaintiff. Other accused parties such as BBC and ITV had already agreed on a deal to repair the damage caused to the appellant (McAlpine v. Bercow 2013). Lord McAlpine gave the payments to charity which featured children in need.
Tugendhat’s judgement for the first part of the case had the basis of the legal interpretation of Bercow’s tweet. However, the accusing team had not proved that Bercow indeed had prior knowledge about the allegations made against McAlpine. Tugendhat’s decision’s base was on the assumption that the defendant knew that McAlpine had sexual assault allegations levelled against him. Otherwise, the base of the ruling should have been on the content shared in itself; which would not amount to derogatory because Bercow just wanted to get information. Honest opinion is an allowed defence against allegations based on the Defamation Act 2013 (Rolph 2013). Another issue is the addition of an innocent face emoji in Bercow’s tweet. The emoji was judged to be sarcastic. Innocent emoji face would be taken literally to show Bercow’s innocence in lacking information about a topic that really seems to have attracted a following. Also, there is no clear explanation of the factors considered to classify Bercow’s emoji as an unnecessary addition.
From the case and its ruling, clear highlights on the legal associations of cybercrime are evident. Bercow’s offence was committed on an online platform; Twitter. Personal responsibility for an online presence is encouraged by the ruling. Despite the abundant possibilities in online platforms, users should understand that the rules in a physical world are still applicable to such platforms. Hence, the ruling served as a warning to all social media users that their profile content is influential in unimaginable ways and they have to share information responsibly.
...(download the rest of the essay above)