Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "BBC crisis: second person makes new claims of bullying against presenter" video.

@thedepthsofrepair The complainant is a young adult, not 17. The complainant is beyond the age of consent and age of majority. Furthermore the complainant was on a website for such activities, where the ToS require a participant to be over the age of majority and to declare that they are, thus it is a reasonable assumption of any other participant that they are speaking to someone over the age of majority. It therefore is not only not a crime, but has no grounds to be considered morally wrong if true. The complainant is engaging in a shake down. The allegation is unconfirmed, uncorroborated and denied by the accused. That makes it exceptionally precarious. Defamation, particularly libel is not simply a measure of whether or not something stated is technically true or not. It is the manner in which it is framed and whether damage to ones reputation results. Someone can state something that is indeed technically true, and still have defamed. Defamation is not a clear cut thing, there are no clear lines. Only a court can decide whether something is defamatory and only then on a case by case basis. That therefore necessitates the defending of a case against them, and the expense associated even if the respondent is found to have not defamed. That would make CH4 the story and tarnish their reputation too. See how that works?
2
The courts have held that a broadcaster is liable for the things written in their comments sections on the internet. So actually, this isn't a free speech issue and it absolutely would be CH4's problem if someone names the presenter here.
1
@thedepthsofrepair Did what exactly? The accusation being talked about clearly isn't criminal in nature, the police are just "having another look" for the politics of it all. It's perfectly legal for one adult to ask another adult if they'd like to do some kind of sexual activity, particularly when they've met through an app designed for people looking for such things. So yes, there is liability here.
1
@ems4884 Yeah, I don't really understand the free speech argument surrounding traditional broadcasters using digital VOD platforms and comments sections. There is no comments section on TV, this probably shouldn't be any different.
1
@charleswhite758 Nope. As I said, all social media pages. Youtube, Facebook, instagram, tiktok, wherever... the courts have held media organisations are liable for any comments on pages which represent them or which hold their content. That's why the overwhelming majority of media orgs have comments disabled across platforms.
1
@charleswhite758 Too lazy to find it for you. If you're really that interested you'll search it. Thanks 🙃
1