Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech

Posted by kdawson on from the inconvenient-truths dept.

Several readers wrote to us about the situation in the UK that saw the Guardian newspaper forbidden by a judge from reporting a question in UK parliament. The press's freedom to do so has been fought for since at least 1688 and fully acknowledged since the 19th century. At issue was a matter of public record — but the country's libel laws meant that the newspaper could not inform the public of what parliament was up to. The question concerned the oil trading company Trafigura, the toxic waste scandal they are involved in, and their generous use of libel lawyers to silence those who would report on the whole thing. After tweeters and bloggers shouted about Trafigura all over the Internet, the company's lawyers agreed to drop the gag request.

8 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Massive headline FAIL by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Informative
    Twitter had nothing to do with this. Yes there was a lot of inconsequential twittering about this, but the reason the injunction was lifted was that reputable newspapers outside the UK were carrying the story. Since they were immune from the injunction - and their content was available in Britain, the injunction became pointless and (just like with the Spycatcher book, which was banned in Britain, but freely available in other english-speaking countries, or terrorist plots which were censored in the UK but freely reported by the NYT) were not serving the purpose of stopping british peopole from finding out the truth.

    British libel laws are a travesty. To the point where half a dozen US states, including California, have had to pass laws preventing UK libel judgements from inhibiting free speech. There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court - as the penalties handed down in British courts are so heavy, and litigation costs so high, that it's financial ruin for a defendant to attempt to defend themselves, even if they are successful.

    So much for free speech in Britain.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Massive headline FAIL by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is even a case at present where a Ukranian website is defending statements it made in Ukranian regarding a Ukranian company, but in a British court...

      Where were the comments posted? This isn't clear from your post.

      If they were posted on an English website, hosted in England, how is this any different than the US wanting to charge Gary McKinnon in a US court? Seems like we're both as bad as each other...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Massive headline FAIL by vague+disclaimer · · Score: 3, Informative
      The Guardian played it cute and used Twitter to do so.

      Do you rely on Guido's band of libertarian wonks and hope people stumble upon it on Google - or do you appeal directly to (say) Stephen Fry' 830,000 followers (plus practically every working hack and writer who usually use Twitter as a way to banter away the working day)?

      It is about distribution, not just publication. The story went from standstill to game-set-match in about 4 hours and that was the Twitter effect. Nowhere near enough people read Guido's ramblings to create that impact that quickly.

  2. Full Report by ThoughtMonster · · Score: 5, Informative

    The full report is also up on wikileaks, along with some background info.

    http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006

  3. Re:One down, an unknown number to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    "enjoined"

  4. Errr...no by mccalli · · Score: 4, Informative

    Twitter nothing. This morning they were threatened with being held in contempt of Parliament. That's when it dropped.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  5. Re:Stephen Fry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The UK is actually starting to resemble late-communist Central Europe. You can have all the freedom you want, if you make sure you're surrounded with people who don't care about the rules. And most people are starting to not care.

    I moved from Hungary, never the most oppressive state in the Eastern Bloc, to the UK in 1998. I don't have words for how delusional your suggestion is. The threat of legal action does have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, but not quite the chilling effect of being beaten senseless or a bullet to the back of the head.

  6. Re:One down, an unknown number to go. by Bazzargh · · Score: 4, Informative

    The PQ about Trafigura everyone was twittering was Q61, Q62 was in fact the one mentioned in that Private Eye editorial:
    Q62: Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.

    With a bit of luck tomorrow we will hear how many of these things have been issued (or at least, get told when we will be told)