Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Image

Man Ordered To Tweet 100 Times For Defamation 57

durianwool writes "To avoid a defamation suit, a man in Malaysia has settled with lawyers saying he will tweet 100 times over the next 3 days that he's sorry for defaming a magazine company. Realizing the mistake in an original tweet, the man issued an apology tweet. That was not acceptable to the company, and the company (also his employer) pursued the matter with lawyers which demanded he place ads in newspapers. Not being able to afford newspaper advertisements, Fahmi Fadzil agreed to settle the matter with a series of apologies on Twitter instead."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Ordered To Tweet 100 Times For Defamation

Comments Filter:
  • eat my shorts!
  • So if you post one comment, a lawyer can scare you into destroying your twitter account by spamming it with 100 retractions?

    • Re:Chilling? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Thursday June 02, 2011 @08:34AM (#36319134)

      So if you post one comment, a lawyer can scare you into destroying your twitter account by spamming it with 100 retractions?

      And nothing of value would be lost.

    • Re:Chilling? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eln ( 21727 ) on Thursday June 02, 2011 @08:39AM (#36319214)
      And then the news media gets a hold of it, creates a Streisand effect, and your twitter account is more popular than it's ever been. Meanwhile, instead of the 4500 followers this guy has knowing about these allegations he made, now millions of people all over the world know about them. When will people ever learn?
    • Tweet #1: I'm sorry that BluInc is run by a bunch of petty self-serving asshats.
      Tweet #2: I apologize for offending the sensibilities of a pack of hyper-sensitive shitheads like BluInc.
      Tweet #3: I feel horrible that BluInc is run by a group of fucktards, so I'm sorry.
      Tweet #4: [...]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    From TFA:

    "At the time of writing, he had completed 19 of the tweets, which must say ...."

    Seems like the wording has to be the same. Too bad that computers are not programmable, so there is no way to automate something like that.

    • Yes, but can he tweet other things before and after, such as "I am legally required to make the following tweets, which are the opinion of and do not represent my opinion of that company."?
  • If he just spams out 100 "I did something wrong" tweets, he's sure to lose all his followers. Of course, he could use a tool like SocialOomph.com to schedule his tweets. He could spew out 20 a night from the hours of 11pm and 2am (one about every 8 minutes). He could be done scheduling them in about an hour's time and could be done with the tweets in 5 days. I wonder if they set any other conditions like "no scheduled tweets", "has to be during the daytime" or "has to be all in a row."

  • by damburger ( 981828 ) on Thursday June 02, 2011 @08:41AM (#36319254)

    He didn't have a leg to stand on, if he libelled a company than essentially called bullshit on himself whilst leaving the offending libel visible on the internet (i.e. still being published).

    And its not an unreasonable settlement. He didn't have to pay money by the sounds of it, and isn't facing criminal charges. He just has to tweet some stuff. And frankly, its refreshing to see a (apparently justified) retraction be more visible than a smear.

    • Yes, but did he actually present false allegations, or did he only later realize the onerous legal burden of defending a valid allegation? Hell, pregnant workers are mistreated in western companies all the time; it's not a stretch to believe that this could happen in Malaysia as well -- doubly so if she's unwed.

  • This is streisand effect to the Nth degree. This is just begging for people to find the offending information, causes public backlash for requiring someone to spam, and for generally making themselves (plaintiffs) look like asses.

    I look forward to reading this story months from now: In other news, lawyers find new way to have Twitter accounts shut down without a court order or asking Twitter. The method, known as "using crowd sourcing to get accounts flagged as spammers by forcing the account holder to sp

  • I'm guessing it was not contrived, but if it was, kudos to this man and whatever marketing company he's working with!
  • "and they were all, _all_ honourable men..." just like shakespeare's famously-quoted speech from julius caesar: most people only know the first line, but our protagonist was barred in his speech from saying a single word against caesar. so the phrase "and they were all, all honourable men" is used repeatedly. in the same way, i can't help but think this will have the opposite effect...

  • Does he have to spend recess clearing Twitter's old server logs and clap the hard drives together afterward?
  • This just take the concept of 'cruel and unusual' punishment to a whole new level. I don't know what I would do if I was forced by a court to do something with twuter, would I live through that without horrific mental trauma? Unlikely.

    • by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

      Considering the original offense was done over twitter, I am not sure you have much of a point.

      Other than showing your maturity by purposely misspelling "twitter".

      • Yes, my maturity must be calculated based on the way I spell the name of a business I personally find a waste of bandwidth. As to the rest of it - I am sorry, I failed with you, I tried make a joke, it didn't work, hope you do not begrudge me this failure for too long, are we square?

        • Yes, my maturity must be calculated based on the way I spell the name of a business I personally find a waste of bandwidth. As to the rest of it - I am sorry, I failed with you, I tried make a joke, it didn't work, hope you do not begrudge me this failure for too long, are we square?

          Take it easy Gramps, it's just an Internet troll trying to getting your goat... It's best just to ignore them, I hear they turn into line-noise in the sun.

          Wait... was he seriously trying to imply your disdain for twitter implied less maturity?

          • No, he implied that spelling something incorrectly deliberately is immature, and I would agree - it's easy to get your point across without resorting to that level of pettiness.

            It's like all the "witty" commenters who spell Microsoft as "M$", as if they're providing insight by pointing out companies are legally bound to make a profit.

  • Could we please pass a bill so that all sorts of prisoners maintain Facebook redemption pages, tweet Gospel verses every day and recite the books of the Bible on YouTube?

    I am confident that the thoughtful, kind, compassionate and caring comments of several thousand (if not million) followers would be much more beneficial to them than the lame standard rehabilitation activities. (It goes without saying that the convicts would be required to read all comments and reply to each and every one individually).

    The

    • Could we please pass a bill so that all sorts of prisoners maintain Facebook redemption pages, tweet Gospel verses every day and recite the books of the Bible on YouTube?

      I am confident that the thoughtful, kind, compassionate and caring comments of several thousand (if not million) followers would be much more beneficial to them than the lame standard rehabilitation activities.

      Uh... As if forcing a Atheist like me to participate in anyone's religious campaign is not the very essence of cruel and unusual . I get your gist, but the method needs to be refined, there's that whole freedom of religion thing that gets in your way -- even if (esp. if) one takes such freedom to renounce all religions.

      If you want me to respect your right to practice a religion, you'll have to respect other's rights to not do so.

      Additionally -- I would simply quote the ugly parts of your scripture:

      • Nice insights, but you got only the minor part of my 'gist".

        My main point was that 'social networks' are the punishment for all of us, guilty and non-guilty, prisoners and "free" citizens. The lines are irrevocably blurred. For a recent example, just google 'Weinergate'.

We were so poor we couldn't afford a watchdog. If we heard a noise at night, we'd bark ourselves. -- Crazy Jimmy

Working...