Social Networking in UK Law

As to vindication, it is probably fair to say that, however high the sum awarded, the purpose can hardly ever be fully achieved. At one end of the spectrum, there will be readers who choose to go on believing the allegations, perhaps out of cynicism about libel proceedings, or because some people are willing to believe anything which confirms their own pre-existing prejudices.

Research of this kind may affect their decision, whether consciously or unconsciously, yet at the same time, neither side at trial will know what consideration might be entering into their deliberations and will therefore not be able to address arguments about it.

I have added the numbering in this passage, which identifies the three distinct functions performed by an award of damages for libel. I have added the lettering also to identify, for ease of reference, the factors listed by Sir Thomas Bingham. Some additional points may be made which are relevant in this case:

Those who use "Twitter" can be "followed" by other users and "Twitter" users often enter into conversations or dialogues with other "Twitter" users. Depending on how a user posts his "tweets", they can become available for others to read.

I interpret those words as being part of the description of the hypothetical reasonable reader, rather than as a prescription of how such a reader should attribute meanings to words complained of as defamatory. But always to adopt the less derogatory meaning would also be unreasonable: it would be naïve.

Those who deliberately participate in disturbances of this magnitude, causing injury and damage and fear to even the most stout-hearted of citizens, and who individually commit further crimes during the course of the riots are committing aggravated crimes. They must be punished accordingly, and the sentences should be designed to deter others from similar criminal activity.