This is a complicated issue. How responsible is someone for fact-checking a statement before making it? People write nonsense here all the time, but I assume it's not illegal.

If I say Obama and Romney had sex, here in a public forum, can I be prosecuted? Should I be prosecuted? There's always that line between what you can do and what you should do, but most people don't seem to know it half the time.

everyone should be held responsible for public statements they make over the internet. Free speech is fine but starting and spreading malicious statements as fact should have consequences.

Two things to remember, the standards are different when the comments are made about a public figure and about a private citizen and the rules on what responsibility you have and what constitutes libel/slander in the UK are different than they are in the US. In general, the UK takes a much harder line against people making false statements, even about public figure, than the US legal system does. I think that people who repeated these accusations without even bothering to find out if they were true deserve to pay a price for it.

The British attitude towards Twitter is ridiculous in general--insult somebody important on Twitter, and you can actually get arrested. These potential lawsuits are just a symptom of a larger problem in Britain. I'm proud that the U.S. is a bit more devoted to the issue of free speech.

Spread lies get sued works for me

frankly, none of these people would have tweeted this if an ACTUAL NEWS ORGANIZATION - BBC - had not falsely reported this story.

So, the punishment begins and ends with BBC.

AG- First off thanks for the image.... I think I may be sick..... Anyhow, if you say um, that thing you said then yes you could be prosecuted. Not only for making the known false statement but possibly for making lots of people retch. The gray area would be if you posted something that said "I heard from a reliable source that" that thing you said happened did indeed happen. Then it becomes a question of *should* you have known the statement was false.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go floss my brain.

@DJDroBro,

Your freedom of speech ends when it infringes on the rights of another which is why there are slander and defamation suits here in the U.S. Im not sure you would be so proud if a rumor about you being a pedophile was circulating through the nation.

I think the US of A ought to dispatch Patraeus over to the UK immediately to straighten this mess out!!

The problem is, do these tweets come from information given at the time and became newsworthy? If I repeat something I hear and repeat it and it turns out wrong, only the person who said it first is malicious.

So you are saying that if you were wrongly accused of something and it destroyed your reputation that you would not do anything about it?

Bookem - every single day religious people say things about gay people that is wrong, straight up lies, and destroys the reputations of thousands of gay people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/nov/05/sandy-revenge-gay-michael-bloomberg

http://www.hrc.org/nomexposed

the 2nd link is HRC's efforts to keep up with the National Organization for Marriage, a group hellbent on ensuring gays remain 2nd class citizens. im sure if you were interested you'd find lots of evidence of these folks saying some pretty awful things, like calling President Obama a Terrorist for supporting gay rights. he called GAY PEOPLE terrorists too.

let me know when i can sue NOM out of existence for defaming gay people.

Jessica, at the same time religious people are have outright lies spread about them as well. Some by gay people, some by atheists, some by others.

I've heard - terrorists, traitors, retards, bible thumpers, losers, hate mongers, racists, etc.

I think the main idea of the suit is to go after high profile twitters who can easily be identified and, oh yes, have lots of monay!

If people didn't want to believe the worse then they would not be so quick to spread evil gossip by any method. Sue away?...how uncaring.

Uncaring? Barely. Uncaring would be "Go die in a fire."

Go broke suing is more like making faces at the mentally handicapped from the other side of the glass.

I think it's a little more than people not liking him. Did you even read the story? How would you feel if you were a politician and suddenly Ashton Kutcher was was spreading false stories about you that you were a child sex-abuser via Twitter? Suddenly all of his followers believe this about you. Would you let it rest or would you sue him for libel and defamation of character? Sure, we have free speech here in the US, but there are consequences to what you choose to say sometimes.

The alleged pedophile, I mean, honorable Member of the House of Lords (what a disgrace in the 21st century,) was not named in the Newsnight report. People inferred his identidy. MSNBC ought to clarify that in the article.

Please go to the David Icke website for lots more info on the pedophilia running rampant in the English power structure. Mr. Icke has been educating people about this for 10+ years. EH ISE not being brought to court because the last thing the high-level pedophiles want is a trial where evidence will be presented.

I bet a few million other people share your opinion that will garner little attention at all. It served it's purpose, didn't it. Besides I thought slutty was the new norm.

Only if you're a stuffed-up prig.

I was just thinking that she has made more than one poor choices in her recent life.

Oh crap, I'm going to get Check-mate on that word fiction by my challengers. OUCH!!!.

Yeah. Sure. Free speech. Call someone a pedophile. I recognize your picture. Weren't you prosecuted for having a relationship with a twelve year old boy? Not true...of course...but I can say it.

Time for the Brits to eliminate the House of Lords and stop paying for the Monarchy. It's fine to have a figure-head Queen, but she should pay for her living expenses and security, not get paid.

I agree Jackie, if they do this, then they need to jail all of Parliament as well for their lies.

David. The Brits in overwhelming numbers want to retain a constitutional monarchy. She does pay for most of her personal expenses. When she is working for the state she gets paid as she should. Anyway, what's it to you? Are you British? If not STFU.

Jackie, people can say whatever they want but there has to be consequences to ruining someone's character. Imagine for one minute that you're a model and suddenly someone on Twitter who has a huge following tweets that you've only made your last 6 mortgage payments because you work for an escort service on the side and he knows someone who has "proof" of this. Meanwhile, your agent got wind of this and decided to drop you because now you're a liability and no studio wants to work with you, either. Are you going to sue the guy who tweeted the lie or are you just going to say, "Oh, well. He has his right to free speech."?

idiot, rather than notanidiotlikeolegunny,you should STFU since you spew falsehoods.

Official costs according to formal reports filed by the Royal Household state that total annual expenditure as of March 2012 was £32.1 million. However it has been estimated by the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic that when additional costs including security, lost revenue and palace grounds maintenance among others are included the cost is between £134 and £184 million per year.

Kat,

Politicians and models are in a very different line of work.

It's called LIBEL, Grant. You may want to learn the difference between character assassination through libel and basic free speech, especially under UK laws. Comments on social sites go viral and can destroy people's lives. Yet dim-witted celebs--who themselves are the most likely to be damaged this way--just can't grasp this truth until it happens to them, and so they tweet away as though their half-baked opinions are anonymous.