Twitter sued for letting users break superinjunction


Recommended Posts

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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 ********...

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

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:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I'm not unblocking my camera for this crapola. Sorry, Google.
    • Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      259
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!