Defamation and hate message; the noose tightens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/technology/26iht-twitter26.html

One characteristic of  hate-siters is that they always 'parrot' the same message, like talking magpies with a cliché.  Let's recall a few: they are all 'right thinking.' They all 'know' that David Bain had injuries 'consistent with having been in a fight with his brother Stephen.' The also 'know' that David's prints were on the rifle 'in blood.' 'Right thinking'  is subjective of course and also a type of banner because if one is 'right thinking' one is off to a jolly good start 'right' down the gurgler. Of course to become a 'hate messenger' one must be able to think not like a 'right thinking New Zealander' but in fact like a magpie.

I'm no expert on magpies but I have an 'attack on sight' parrot called Horace. Horace is an amazing parrot in that I never needed to teach him how to bite, he taught himself, he also taught himself how to climb on the roof and drop lead headed nails on passers-by  On one excursion into the wild he entered a neighbour's house where they were quite taken with him until they decided they didn't really want him in the kitchen wrecking things because he likes to wreck, and talk and be cheeky, but most of all to stand his ground. I don't intend to be disrespectful to magpies or parrots by saying that hate-siters are like them, but such types of birds like shiny things and mischief. Magpies as you may know are fiercely territorial and will swoop on dogs or humans they fear might be getting close to a nest. So my comparison between magpies and stalkers is not disrespectful to those highly intelligent birds so protective of their own territory and young. Perhaps lemmings are a better picture or description.

As we see from the New York Times article above, 'twitterers' are now 'relegated' to the ranks of defamers and hate messengers if they're silly enough to repeat information that may not be true, or simply make something up in order to embarrass or frighten others. Reading that article it seems to this point that 'Twitter' itself sees it's position as 'indemnified' by virtue of 'user rules' possibly a contract of sorts which makes users responsible for what they 'tweet.' Good luck with that one. As we found out earlier this year when Trade Me settled with Joe Karam a private entity can not indemnify themselves against the Law. Despite best efforts at denial Trade Me rightly realised they own what they publish whether the words are their own or not. Their previous position was similar in law of a 'chain of responsibility' not existing, which overlooked that the supplier of a vehicle or a firearm to robbers has liability. Twitter, or indeed the Law on their behalf, will have to consider that if a person 'tweets' a publication which is offensive or threatening, if but for the help of Twitter it will never have reached it's target and the broader audience who witness the offence - same as for message boards and indeed traditional print, newspapers and magazines.

Overall, hate-siters with knitting needles poised over voodoo dolls will see this as another attack on 'right thinking' parrots, magpies or whatever you might wish to call an idiot that repeats mantras of hate dutifully because they like the sound of it and believe it must be true because some other idiot magpie called Kent published it on a hate-site. But in the reported case we see the 'real dangers' when 'right thinking' idiots make false claims against people, or 'report' information that is simply not truthful or indeed they have no way of confirming whether it is true apart from hearing from another parrot called Vic Purkiss, or maybe Melanie White the 'Truth Confessor.'

Fortunately 'stick and stones' may not break your bones, but in the hands of our New Zealand hate-siters they took their defamation and hate-message further. They 'proposed' visits for 'cups of tea,' to take children away from families, send family friends around who were 'boxers,' or to 'rescue' children or partners of their sworn enemies - those that weren't 'right thinking New Zealanders. Annette Curran, Christine Williams and Glenda O Brien were busy laying false complaints and drooling over the prospect of having me arrested on Christmas Eve with the help of a larger hate-organisation, one quite happy to accept the word of similarly dull minded half-wits. Little did that second organisation know that the dullard 'twisted sisters' were recording all their machinations on Annette Curran's hate-site that she had opened to the world by advertising, how sad for her that she was so thick that she didn't realise that the money she might earn by having advertising on her site would also sink her. Advertising of course allowed any punter into the until then 'secret site,' coven or whatever you might wish to call it. One thoughtful contact of mine copied everything available to the public that linked through advertising - all panic broke loose, threats of court action you name it. Of course you can't publicly display something in your own stupidity of thinking that it was private and still claim privacy when any reasonably intelligent person would understand the format of advertising.  That information gathered still serves today in current and prospective litigation along with leaks from Kent Parker's hate-sites.

So a few doors are yet to be knocked upon, hen's yet to come home to roost thanks to the leaky sites and idiots who thought their hate was normal and right thinking. In the wider view we will all learn the simple adage 'what you print you own.' An adage that Twitter may yet discover, and certainly now a large number of their users begin to understand.