Why vicious internet trolls deserve to be named and shamed

Imagine a scenario. Someone in the media has named you as a former IRA prisoner. This has actually happened to me a few times, when lazy reporters or researchers confused me, I suspect, with Shane Paul O’Doherty.

That sort of mistake can lower you in the esteem of right-thinking people (though Shane Paul is a fine chap). I had to go to people who employed my services and explain to them that I was not and never had been in the IRA.

When this kind of thing happens you need a correction in public where people will see it and you will be entitled to compensation, so you go to a solicitor. The solicitor will write a strongly worded letter to the offender and then — if the mistake is obvious and acknowledged — you will get an offer of a redress procedure.

But now a poker game has commenced. If you are not satisfied with the offer you have to gamble that you can press for more and go into court. A jury may think that the offer you turned down was perfectly reasonable and that could land you with costs.

Libel itself is sometimes hard to evaluate. If those who had taken me for an IRA man had made a different mistake and said I was gay, would that be seriously defamatory? I doubt it.

We live in a society where right-thinking people no longer regard being gay as disreputable. Personally, I would not be inclined to seek damages over a mistake like that and would be content with a clarification.

The big injustice is that you need to gamble to get redress for you could lose. A man who sued Elon Musk for calling him “pedo guy” lost his case, though he wasn’t a paedophile.

Stephen Nolan struck a blow last week for people who have been reviled and defamed in social media and have not felt able to do anything about it.

Two people have apologised for trolling him. In the case of someone who took the name Pastor Jimberoo, the compensation paid to Stephen was high. This was warranted because the damage which this person sought to inflict on him was serious.

Pastor Jimberoo ran a campaign to have Stephen lose his work with the BBC. I worked for over 20 years as a freelance journalist inside the BBC. I don’t know what Stephen’s contract is, but I know that the position of most freelances is precarious.

The BBC can just stop using you and does not need to explain why. The presenter Sean Coyle, for instance, was dropped from his Radio Ulster slot simply because the station wanted to try other voices. You can’t sack a teacher or a barman like that.

One day Stephen Nolan will be out of favour, as David Dunseith was after a long spell on Talkback. The decision to drop David was based on questions about how popular he was, whether he was just as alert as he had previously been, subjective value judgments about his character and presentation of the very kind you would not be allowed to make in sacking another kind of employee.

Gerry Anderson, one of the best broadcasters we ever had, was dropped by Radio Four on similar evaluations, which really amounted to there being people in Tunbridge Wells who didn’t like him. Well, there are people in Twinbrook who don’t like Stephen Nolan.

I do like him, most of the time. At other times he annoys me. But my point is that he was potentially vulnerable to Pastor Jimberoo’s campaign.

The BBC can decide not to renew his contract as freely as he can decide one day to take a break, or go elsewhere.

Faced with such a threat, reinforced by defamatory statements, Stephen had no choice but to defend himself and no means of defence available other than attack.

And, because the trick in the game is to avoid going into court, issues of defamation are often determined by solicitors and their clients, rather than by judges and juries.

The people that Stephen Nolan went after got something out of the deal, too. They preserved their anonymity.

They could not have done that in court. That anonymity complicates claims they might face from others they may have defamed.

So, in terms of justice the outcome is compromised. It is good that trolls have been punished and silenced. Hell roast them.

But it is not good that this was done behind closed doors. This was not justice being done and being seen to be done.

Steal shampoo from a supermarket and you can get your name in the paper.

Why not, then, for an assault on someone’s reputation?