British Twitter users' details revealed in landmark court case

The council of South Tyneside has successfully obtained the details of multiple Twitter accounts, which the council claims were used to post libellous messages. Officials were pushed to take the company to court in its native California, where a judge ruled that the perpetrators (who were based in Britain) had no protection from Twitter. The company was forced to hand over its data on five different accounts.

The news comes during a storm of controversy in the celebrity world, where the holders of "super-injunctions" are being outed through the social networking site. Speaking to The Telegraph, Amber Melville-Brown, a media law specialist consultant, said:

This case concerning serious allegations about South Tyneside councillors could have significant repercussions across the blogosphere. With Twitter quietly assisting in the process, the case could have an equally significant impact on future applications by those seeking to protect their privacy and reputation anywhere in the world, as a result of activity on Twitter.

The council are hoping to track down a "Mr Monkey", who has been blogging about the council since 2008. Accusations are far-reaching and include drug misuse, ballott rigging, and even a story of a councillor making a public bus turn around and pick him up from the pub. The allegations made their jump to Twitter in 2009.

Ahmed Khan is one of the Twitter account owners. An independent councillor, Khan denies links to the "Mr Monkey" account but also questions the impact the ruling has on free speech. "If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don’t like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?", he said.

Twitter users will now be kept on their toes, according to Charles Glasser. The global media counsel for Bloomberg said the ruling "puts Twitter and social media users on notice that they may be held accountable for what they publish." Twitter's privacy policy says that it will release information about users to comply with a law, regulation or legal request, but now a successful ruling has been made it seems the floodgates are about to open. Before, Ryan Giggs' lawyers attempted to retrieve similar information, but the British ruling had no legal status in Twitter's own country, so the deadline passed without consequence.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Samsung lawyers demand to see Apple's iPhone 5 and iPad 3

Next Story

Popular game-based emulators taken off Android Market

10 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Wasn't the Courtenay Love Twitter case...and the $430,000 settlement enough to clue people in?

All the Twitter libel cases in the US have been settled out of court so far...so there's no legal precedent been set yet...but $430 K is a lot of money to avoid a judge.

Looks like Ahmed Khan will be writing some cheques of his own shortly...

Ha ha, is this about the whole Ryan Giggs thing?
(I'm not linking his name to anything. . . )

The way I see it is that if you get out one of these super injunction things then you obviously have something to hide, which usually mans guilt.
It's like the Prime Minister says, there's no point in having something stopping the media printing something which everyone is talking about and has full knowledge about anyway!

You should learn to man (or woman) up and face up to your actions instead of trying to hide them.

1. Councils or companies themselves cannot be libelled, libel is a false and malicious statement about a person. You have to ask why the council are even involved. Looks to me like council money is being spent on private matters, so now you know why you pay so much tax.

2. Reveal what, ip address maybe, email to open the account. Not really going to give much if you didn't fill in your real name.

3. However this wasn't about unmasking a Twitter user it was more about seeing a known Twitter users account to check for some evidence to tie him to a blog.

"If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don't like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?"

Someone needs to tell this guy that freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say, it only gives you the freedom to say it. If you write libellous, slanderous, defamatory, or other statements then you need to be prepared for the consequences of writing such things.
He seems to need a hard lesson in this and I hope the people who elected him are not disadvantaged by whatever other naive things he may do during his time serving the local council.

yj589794 said,
"If a council can take this kind of action against one of its own councillors simply because they don't like what I say, what hope is there for freedom of speech or privacy?"

Someone needs to tell this guy that freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say, it only gives you the freedom to say it. If you write libellous, slanderous, defamatory, or other statements then you need to be prepared for the consequences of writing such things.
He seems to need a hard lesson in this and I hope the people who elected him are not disadvantaged by whatever other naive things he may do during his time serving the local council.

Remember that councils themselves cannot be libelled so the question is what are the council doing spending our cash on legal action. If individual council members have been libelled then they should pursue their own actions.

Sounds to me like "Mr Monkey" may have a point.