If You Repeat Something Do You Become Responsible For Its Content?

[youngmafbog]

Not so long ago Trump re-tweeted a post originating from the far right. He was vilifies for it particularly so by the left and liberal press effectively say yes you are responsible.

Now we have McDonell repeating a 'joke' that purported to violence against a fellow MP. He says he just repeated it and so should not apologize. The left wing and liberal press seem to thing he should.

Is McDonnel right or wrong?

[Peter Pedant]

// If a statement should turn out to be libellous then anyone who publishes it is liable.//

I would say actionable rather than libellous

The usual suspects have their usual underwear unusually knotted. Are they really saying that if you say knee-jair or packie in public - then a defence would really be " yeah my dad said that in 1956 and I am just repeating it"

I suggest it wouldnt work. Blimey

or stab himi stab him, kill the pig!
oh yeah it wasnt me I was just repeating what I just heard from someone behind me yeah ?

[Peter Pedant]

Start at 3 mins - its nartta 'ban' - you just said 'ban' - no I said 'ban' just because you said it - and I am saying it back but I didnt say it you did....

[Old_Geezer]

I'd reckon if one cited the original source rather than imply it was one's own view, then you might not pick up responsibility. However if the original quote turns out to be in error, it might not do your own reputation much good, forwarding fake news.

[webbo3]

what, like this.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4299167/corbyn-ally-shares-message-telling-rotherham-sex-abuse-victims-to-be-quiet-for-the-good-of-diversity/

http://metro.co.uk/2017/08/23/mp-shares-tweet-saying-abuse-victims-should-shut-their-mouths-for-good-of-diversity-6872181/

[naomi24]

^That's truly shocking.

[andy-hughes]

In this world of cyber-communication, there are plenty of people who type first and think afterwards - President Trump being among the biggest offenders.

In communication, especially written communication which is open to scrutiny and analysis in a way that the spoken word is not - unless recorded - context is everything.

If you re-tweet a racist comment, then you are inferring that you agree with it. If you re-tweet it as a quote which you then condemn, then your antipathy is clear.

It is these simple rules which regular users of social media need to be aware of - and the higher their profile, and therefore the greater attention paid to social media observations - the more aware and more careful people need to be.

I don't do Twitter, and I am happy enough to elaborate on the odd misunderstanding that crops up on here, and I accept it as part of the downside of written-only communication.

But I can do that, because I am not a politician, and I am not the President.