Twitter sued for letting users break superinjunction

[articuno1au]

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.

Or unless you guys signed a treaty.. Or just because if you don't common law doesn't work etc etc.

Ever wondered how Microsoft got hit by the EU?

How Yahoo got hit by the French?

If the US doesn't uphold the injunction, then the UK will in turn not uphold a US court injunction, which in turn will mean; and off the perpetual motion machine goes..

International business law is far more complicated then "We are Americans so the rest of you can **** off". An approach often taken, rarely successful.

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...

Failure to act does not equal condoning is the protection ISPs have.

In this case Twitter was ordered to act by the injunction and failed to, thus condoning the action (thus the lawsuit).

The question is whether Twitter falls under the scope of the injunction and whether Twitter can be held accountable for users posts in this regard (something which hasn't been tested before with these "super injunctions").

This will indeed be an interesting case.. I just want to know how Twitter was supposed to know it wasn't allowed to let users post this info, and how they could be expected to be aware a user was posting a super injunctions content :\

Such a wanky case. The guy who initiated the injunction needs shooting. Then a divorce so he can **** women he wants without subjecting the rest of the world to his ****..

[84Mark]

He's been officially out'ed in Parliment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

[Noveed]

He's been officially out'ed in Parliment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

Yup

John Hemmind you are a Legend :laugh:

[Stonkwell Bogtrotter]

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.

They have a UK office, so they could be done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13502854

[Charisma Veteran]

Oh, what an idiot. If you aren't prepared to face the consequences, don't do things like have an affair. Honestly. Public "shame" is one of those things that keep people accountable, hey?

[sagum]

Just so I don't accidently tweet or facebook any super injunction court orders, where am I supposed to look for information on what I'm not allowed to post... or infact, where would twitter or the like check up on it? Seems like one of them weird paradoxical oxymoronic thingiemebobs.

[iwod]

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

LOL, i must admit that is pretty bad, but on the other side, US isn't any better either.

[articuno1au]

Just so I don't accidently tweet or facebook any super injunction court orders, where am I supposed to look for information on what I'm not allowed to post... or infact, where would twitter or the like check up on it? Seems like one of them weird paradoxical oxymoronic thingiemebobs.

Yep, you are entirely right. The difference in this case is that the twitter user posted saying the person in question had an injunction in place (which means they were aware of it, thus the issue).

I'm sure the Lords would overturn it anyway.. It's currently under review for just this reason.

[Growled Member]

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.

I think so too. Even public figures should have some privacy. The crazy people on the Internet thinks no one should, apparently.

[game_over]

I think so too. Even public figures should have some privacy. The crazy people on the Internet thinks no one should, apparently.

Well he made it 10 times worse, the news is covering this heavily, the injunction, not the affair but of course he is at the centre of it.

People care more because of the injunction it would have blown over by now.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

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'm sorry but how can you breach an injunction that hasn't been served on you?

Even if I suspected it was Ryan Giggs and posted as such on Twitter it would only be speculation. I wouldn't KNOW it was him and the injunction wasn't served on me, so how can I possibly be in breach? The courts would have to tell everybody not to talk about Ryan Giggs' affair for it to be fair and just to prosecute people that do so... but in doing that the whole injunction would be pointless anyway!

[+bomberh Subscriber²]

Who gives a s**t about superinjunction??

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Who gives a s**t about superinjunction??

Then get out of the thread instead of posting stupid comments :p

[Davo]

This entire case is ******** if it is supported. Since when can you gag tons of people not associated with a case? It would be one thing if the mistress/mister Tweeted it themselves.

[+bomberh Subscriber²]

Then get out of the thread instead of posting stupid comments :p

hahaha stupid comment, if you say so, but like everything else, isn't this whole thing about free speech?? so I am having my say.......who gives a s**t about superinjunction :p

[HSoft]

This entire case is ******** if it is supported. Since when can you gag tons of people not associated with a case? It would be one thing if the mistress/mister Tweeted it themselves.

Fairly much this. You can't really put a gag order on a whole country (well unless you live in a communist state like China).

And it would get really interesting anyway if the person(s) who tweeted about it weren't UK citizens but from the US, China, Outer Mongolia or somewhere else. This suit just doesn't make sense.

[articuno1au]

I'm sorry but how can you breach an injunction that hasn't been served on you?

Even if I suspected it was Ryan Giggs and posted as such on Twitter it would only be speculation. I wouldn't KNOW it was him and the injunction wasn't served on me, so how can I possibly be in breach? The courts would have to tell everybody not to talk about Ryan Giggs' affair for it to be fair and just to prosecute people that do so... but in doing that the whole injunction would be pointless anyway!

That's an easy one.. The person posting on twitter acknowledged the information was covered by an injunction. That's where in the issue arises. The people who were unaware can defend themselves, but that guys forked.

hahaha stupid comment, if you say so, but like everything else, isn't this whole thing about free speech?? so I am having my say.......who gives a s**t about superinjunction :p

No.. The only country that has free-speech under law is the US. No other country gives a statutory right to free speech.

Also, saying you are entitled to your opinion does not make it any less moronic or any less a waste of time for those of us who want to debate this serious and extremely dangerous issue.

Fairly much this. You can't really put a gag order on a whole country (well unless you live in a communist state like China).

And it would get really interesting anyway if the person(s) who tweeted about it weren't UK citizens but from the US, China, Outer Mongolia or somewhere else. This suit just doesn't make sense.

Sure you can. There are tons of examples of it. Military classification, political classification, non-disclosure etc etc All of these are effective country wide gags, for the simple reason that the people who know are gagged, and the people that don't know, can't tell because they don't know.

The issue here isn't the breadth of the gag, the issue is that it's issued in secret and that a person can be in contempt of the courts without being aware that they were.

That's the issue with super-injunctions.

The other issue is that courts shouldn't have issued an injunction stopping the discussion of a public figure, what with the Brits having freedom of press and all (not the same as freedom of speech) >.>

[84Mark]

Twitter's European boss warns 'users may face court'

Twitter's new European boss has suggested that users who break privacy injunctions by posting on the site could face the UK courts.

He warned that the site would hand over user information to the authorities where they were "legally required".

Lawyers are challenging Twitter in court to reveal the identities of Twitter users who violated a super-injunction.

MP John Hemming named Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs in Parliament on Monday as the footballer who had used a super-injunction to hide an alleged affair, after Mr Giggs' name had been widely aired on Twitter.

Responding to a question from BBC News at the e-G8 forum in Paris, Mr Wang said: "Platforms have a responsibility, not to defend that user but to protect that user's right to defend him or herself".

He declined to comment on the case directly but explained that in general, when dealing with cases of illegal activity, Twitter would comply with local laws to turn over user details.

He stressed that the site would also notify those individuals of any such request.

Mr Wang made it clear that if the matter came to court, those people would be on their own.

He said Twitter would, "let them exercise their own legal rights under their own jurisdiction, whether that is a motion to quash the order or to oppose it or do a number of other things to defend themselves."

The subject of legal jurisdictions and the internet has been hotly debated at the first e-G8 summit.

Technology industry leaders including Google's Eric Schmidt and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg were among the speakers at the event.

While many attendees felt that there was a need for further discussion, among delegates from the United States, there was little sympathy for the British legal position.

"I do view it to being similar to the Chinese situation where they also cover up misdeeds of high ranking people," Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales told the BBC.

He said that, although the internet was a global phenomenon, it was unlikely to pander to those countries with stricter rules.

"The US is going to be absolutely inflexible on this point. It is in the constitution," he said, referring to freedom of speech provisions.

"I think that puts intergovernmental communication and co-operation on this issue into a different light, which is, there's not a whole lot to co-operate on."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13546847

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I'd recommend giving this blog post on the subject a read: Privacy, Super-Injunctions and the Media - Dispelling Myths.

[Shibby]

Fairly much this. You can't really put a gag order on a whole country (well unless you live in a communist state like China).

And it would get really interesting anyway if the person(s) who tweeted about it weren't UK citizens but from the US, China, Outer Mongolia or somewhere else. This suit just doesn't make sense.

Well the UK is the place to go if you want to sue someone for libel, there has been many cases against people/companies for libel who well never step foot in the country, some cases have been about content on the internet. Which is why some sites sometimes block access from the UK, because of libel...

So I wouldn't be surprised if some ****ty lack of law-made-up-on-the-hoof-by-a-judge starts trying to sue people in other countries for tweeting.

We've got morons for MPs who quite frankly feather their own and friends nests. Heard about Ed Vaizey who breif includes libraries? Had 2 meetings regarding libraries, yet Virgin Media can get 5 face to face meetings and there are more companies who he had meetings with.

Who would want to vote when the politicians are utter useless.