Twitter sued for letting users break superinjunction

[84Mark]

A footballer has sued Twitter after a number of the microblogging site's users purported to reveal the name of the player who allegedly had an affair with model Imogen Thomas.

The footballer's legal team began the legal action at the high court in London on Wednesday, in what is thought to be the first action against the US social media firm and its users.

The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown". The latter are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts" in the court document, according to reports.

Earlier this month, an unknown person or individuals published the names of various people who had allegedly taken out gagging orders to conceal sexual indiscretions on a Twitter account. The account rapidly attracted more than 100,000 followers.

Twitter had not responded to a request for comment at time of publication.

The lord chief justice, Lord Judge, on Friday said Twitter and its users were totally out of control when it comes to privacy injunctions and court orders.

Although there was no mention of Twitter in Lord Neuberger's long-awaited report on superinjunctions, published on Friday, Lord Judge said readers placed greater trust in the contents of traditional media than in those "who peddle lies" on websites.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-privacy

[x-byte]

Maybe he should focus on the real problem instead, like the affair. Twitter is a public service and can't be held reliable for something its users do. If you have to brag about your affair, don't use the internet.

[84Mark]

If you have to brag about your affair, don't use the internet.

He hasn't bragged about his affair - other people have, and by doing that they violated a superinjuction granted by the UK courts.

I guess the debate here is who is held responsible? Twitter for facilitating it... or the users who broke the superinjunction by posting what they did. And is it possible to police and enforce this law on social networking websites.

[+Ryster Subscriber²]

Maybe he should focus on the real problem instead, like the affair. Twitter is a public service and can't be held reliable for something its users do. If you have to brag about your affair, don't use the internet.

I think you mean liable. And like Jedimark said, he hasn't bragged about anything. Just the opposite, he obtained a court order to try and keep it private. Twitter users breached this court order.

The true test will be if the court orders twitter to identify the user in question. IP address + date and time + ISP cooperation should = account holder of connection where leak was breached.

[SuperKid]

He hasn't bragged about his affair - other people have, and by doing that they violated a superinjuction granted by the UK courts.

I guess the debate here is who is held responsible? Twitter for facilitating it... or the users who broke the superinjunction by posting what they did. And is it possible to police and enforce this law on social networking websites.

I hope not.

[articuno1au]

I think the greater issue is an injunction was issued to stop the propagation of an apparently true rumor.

That sounds like a massive overstepping of the courts purview :\

(I say this without knowing any of the details beyond what is on this page.)

[Miuku.]

Since Twitter doesn't fall under the UK law, the UK judges and the footballer in question can go take it up the tailpipe.

[articuno1au]

The US courts regularly uphold injunctions in the US as made in the UK.

More importantly, if Twitter plan to trade/offer services in the UK, then they open themselves to UK law.

I think you will find you are entirely wrong with that statement.

[fusi0n]

everyone sue everyone = profit

[84Mark]

Since Twitter doesn't fall under the UK law, the UK judges and the footballer in question can go take it up the tailpipe.

Twitter users agree to the terms of service which state: "You may use the Services only in compliance with these Terms and all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations."

And I believe a superinjunction is worldwide protection although I have no idea really what Californian state law would make of this.

I think the greater issue is an injunction was issued to stop the propagation of an apparently true rumor.

Well that may be so, but it's a whoooole separate issue that is being delt with in Parliment right now.

[Singh400]

He hasn't bragged about his affair - other people have, and by doing that they violated a superinjuction granted by the UK courts.

I guess the debate here is who is held responsible? Twitter for facilitating it... or the users who broke the superinjunction by posting what they did. And is it possible to police and enforce this law on social networking websites.

No one is ****ing responsible. Super injunctions are stupid. If he didn't want the affair getting out in the first place, then he should have been faithful. Simple really.

[x-byte]

I think you mean liable. And like Jedimark said, he hasn't bragged about anything. Just the opposite, he obtained a court order to try and keep it private. Twitter users breached this court order.

The true test will be if the court orders twitter to identify the user in question. IP address + date and time + ISP cooperation should = account holder of connection where leak was breached.

Thank you for clearing it up and correcting me. On my phone and did not read the link.

I fail to se how Twitter are under that court order. If so Twitter should reveal the tweet origin and give the info to the police.

[articuno1au]

Well that may be so, but it's a whoooole separate issue that is being delt with in Parliment right now.

Yeah.. I just read into it. The legal complications on incredible, not to mention those of a hyper injunction.. Stupid really..

As for whether Twitter is affected by this: The English and US courts uphold injunctions issued by each other otherwise free trade doesn't work..

[Lant]

I think the greater issue is an injunction was issued to stop the propagation of an apparently true rumor.

That sounds like a massive overstepping of the courts purview :\

(I say this without knowing any of the details beyond what is on this page.)

A fair amount of people don't like the way they currently work.

David Cameron has said he doesn't like the way they work and said he would like to discuss them in Parliament.

[splur]

Superinjunction... what an interesting concept.

[Miuku.]

More importantly, if Twitter plan to trade/offer services in the UK, then they open themselves to UK law.

I think you will find you are entirely wrong with that statement.

If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. As it stands, Twitter doesn't fall under the UK jurisdiction unless USA has been recently re-integrated into UK without anyone knowing about it.

[jakem1]

So who's suing Twitter? I don't see why the newspapers don't report his name considering that this suit won't be covered by the superinjunction. This whole thing is getting out of control.

[Fubar]

LOL what an idiot Ryan Giggs is, sorry but a super injuction was a knee jerk reaction by some top judges to side with over paid arse holes, he had an affair he lost his right to privacy as soon as he cheated on his wife, the whole super injuction ******** is just that ********...

[Jan Veteran]

LOL what an idiot Ryan Giggs is, sorry but a super injuction was a knee jerk reaction by some top judges to side with over paid arse holes, he had an affair he lost his right to privacy as soon as he cheated on his wife, the whole super injuction ******** is just that ********...

This x100000

[still1]

She is Hot.....

[what]

Ryan Giggs

is a bit of an idiot.

I cannot be held responsible for anyone highlighting that :p

[giantpotato]

LOL what an idiot [censored] is, sorry but a super injuction was a knee jerk reaction by some top judges to side with over paid arse holes, he had an affair he lost his right to privacy as soon as he cheated on his wife, the whole super injuction ******** is just that ********...

When Neowin gets sued it will be all your fault. :laugh:

[simsie]

I always assumed social networking sites are protected by the law that protects ISPs from people pirating via their networks. This lawsuit will be interesting...

[CentralDogma]

Crazy UK with your "lord chief justice" and your "superinjunction" and your ... "colour"

[torrentthief]

ryan giggs is a douche, i hope the crowd boo's him at the final game of the season tomorrow :)