The primary lesson from Friday’s libel ruling in the case between Jack Monroe and Katie Hopkins is clear: be careful what you tweet. A further lesson is perhaps even clearer: when you know you have made a mistake, fess up and be done with it. Alternatively just avoid using social media altogether; Twitter ye not.

Will these lessons be learned though? The fact is we already knew that a tweet could be considered by the courts to be libellous. In 2013 the Conservative peer Lord McAlpine successfully sued Sally Bercow over a tweet which was held to allege his guilt over sexually abusing boys. Bercow paid undisclosed damages and was ordered to apologise in open court. The ruling against her, she said, “should be seen as a warning to all social media users”. Evidently Katie Hopkins didn’t get the memo.

On its own merits, the judgment in favour of Monroe is welcome. It reasserts the point that Twitter is not a free-for-all: the laws of the land apply to tweets as plainly as they would to any form of publishing. It also provides Monroe with long-desired vindication over a claim which Hopkins knew to be untrue very swiftly after it was made – that Monroe condoned and approved of vandalising war memorials. In the midst of the great debate over “fake news”, it is comforting that the courts are willing to help truth speak to power, and the power of a bully at that.

Hopkins’ defence rested in part on the contention that Twitter is the “Wild West” of social media and is known by users not to carry the authority of, for instance, a mainstream publisher. In short, you can’t believe what you read, which is an odd defence to maintain for a radio presenter and media columnist – even one who falls into the “rentagob” category. No wonder Hopkins didn’t fancy giving evidence in person. “That’s right m’lud, nobody believes a word I say so where possibly can the harm lie?!”

Oddly enough though, I have always had a certain degree of sympathy with the basic premise which Hopkins’ legal team sought to rely on. Twitter has always seemed a fascinating place which it doesn’t do to take too seriously – funny, informative, but not worth getting upset over when it turns nasty. I have, it’s true, suffered little by comparison with many others but I’ve tended to the view that, for the most part, it’s better to ignore the hate and the untruths than to rise to it or be distressed by it.

Monroe’s own family connections to the military meant there was an understandable reason to be particularly aggrieved by Hopkins’ erroneous claim – which appeared to stem from her confusing Monroe with the commentator Laurie Penny. But even beyond the particulars of this case, there are plenty who will argue it is an apt time to reconsider where the balance between freedom and responsibility lies on social media. We have, after all, seen in the last year how much those staples of our online world – Twitter, Facebook et al – can be used for ill.

For a start they are platforms which enable trolls to target the powerful and vulnerable alike – witness, for instance, the death threats made against everyone from MPs to campaigners like Gina Miller or Caroline Criado-Perez and even those who have already been victims of crime (it is notable that women suffer especially). But beyond that we now have to consider whether the deliberate dissemination of untrue information – chiefly via Facebook – is having a decaying effect on the foundations of Western democracy.

And yet still we should be wary of cracking down too heavily on social media’s murkier edges. Monroe’s court win should be regarded very much as an exception, where a clear libel required redress. Likewise, while it is right that criminal acts of harassment online should be duly punished, we must be cautious about seeking to expand the definition of illegal behaviour when it comes to comments made on Twitter. And as for seeking somehow to regulate fake news, well – good luck with that.

The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Show all 9 1 /9 The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and the media White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer takes questions during the daily press briefing Getty Images The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Union leaders applaud US President Donald Trump for signing an executive order withdrawing the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington DC. Mr Trump issued a presidential memorandum in January announcing that the US would withdraw from the trade deal Getty The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and the Mexico wall A US Border Patrol vehicle sits waiting for illegal immigrants at a fence opening near the US-Mexico border near McAllen, Texas. The number of incoming immigrants has surged ahead of the upcoming Presidential inauguration of Donald Trump, who has pledged to build a wall along the US-Mexico border. A signature campaign promise, Mr Trump outlined his intention to build a border wall on the US-Mexico border days after taking office Getty Images The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and abortion US President Donald Trump signs an executive order as Chief of Staff Reince Priebus looks on in the Oval Office of the White House. Mr Trump reinstated a ban on American financial aide being granted to non-governmental organizations that provide abortion counseling, provide abortion referrals, or advocate for abortion access outside of the United States Getty Images The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and the Dakota Access pipeline Opponents of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines hold a rally as they protest US President Donald Trump's executive orders advancing their construction, at Columbus Circle in New York. US President Donald Trump signed executive orders reviving the construction of two controversial oil pipelines, but said the projects would be subject to renegotiation Getty Images The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and 'Obamacare' Nancy Pelosi who is the minority leader of the House of Representatives speaks beside House Democrats at an event to protect the Affordable Care Act in Los Angeles, California. US President Donald Trump's effort to make good on his campaign promise to repeal and replace the healthcare law failed when Republicans failed to get enough votes. Mr Trump has promised to revisit the matter Getty Images The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Donald Trump and 'sanctuary cities' US President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January threatening to pull funding for so-called "sanctuary cities" if they do not comply with federal immigration law AP The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and the travel ban US President Donald Trump has attempted twice to restrict travel into the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. The first attempt, in February, was met with swift opposition from protesters who flocked to airports around the country. That travel ban was later blocked by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The second ban was blocked by a federal judge a day before it was scheduled to be implemented in mid-March SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP/Getty Images The controversial orders Donald Trump has already issued Trump and climate change US President Donald Trump sought to dismantle several of his predecessor's actions on climate change in March. His order instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to reevaluate the Clean Power Plan, which would cap power plant emissions Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

The reason for caution goes beyond merely the importance of maintaining free expression per se. Populists such as Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen have gained ground by playing on notions that the establishment is involved in a stitch-up against the common man. This includes claims that truth is stifled by authorities.