In the UK, a Few Tweets Restore Freedom of Speech

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.

Comments

Stephen Fry

[Canazza]

I loved Stephen Fry's quote on this

"Can it be true? Carter-Ruck caves in! Hurrah! Trafigura will deny it had anything to do with Twitter, but we know don't we? We know! Yay!!!"

Re:Stephen Fry

[dword]

Agreed. Please let me rephrase: twitting and blogging are work-arounds, because the problem is still there. It wasn't fixed by the lawyers dropping the gag request; it will only be fixed as soon as the judge admits that the judgement was a mistake and explains why it was a mistake.

Re:Stephen Fry

[Shrike82]

The only difference between Britain and the rest of the Western World is that our government just suck at hiding their Orwellian monitoring of the general population. You think other governments aren't monitoring, spying and tracking their own citizens? They've just learned from our mistakes about how to keep it quiet...

Re:Stephen Fry

[polar red]

You think other governments and corporations aren't monitoring, spying and tracking all citizens/serfs/customers?

there, fixed that for ya.

Re:Stephen Fry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Stephen Fry

[teh kurisu]

That depends on what you regard as 'the problem'.

The 'super-injunction', as the press are calling it, was the injunction placed on the Guardian's publication of the Minton Report, and the associated gag order that prevented the paper from revealing the existence of the injunction.

The judge didn't directly apply the gag order to the parliamentary question tabled by Paul Farrelly (which didn't exist at the time), and by all accounts the gag order did not cover parliamentary proceedings in any case because of qualified privilege. The only reason it became an issue was because the Guardian received a specific legal threat from law firm Carter-Ruck:

"The threatened publication would place the Guardian in contempt of court ... please confirm by immediate return that the publications threatened will not take place."

As we all know, statements made by lawyers are often merely the legal opinions of said lawyers.

The gag order is the sinister part of the whole thing (not the injunction, which is perfectly reasonable given judicial oversight), but I'd like to point out that these are not uniquely British as the GP seems to be alluding. I'm put in mind of the National Security Letters sent out by arms of the US Government, which placed similar gag orders, but unlike this situation did not have any judicial oversight.

Re:Stephen Fry

[x2A]

That didn't look like his point to me at all...

"My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions"

*coughs* projecting!!!!!!

Re:Stephen Fry

[x2A]

FGS what's wrong with you, this is slashdot, a place for wild comparisons by people who know no better, kindly check in your "real experience" at the door, you can collect it on your way out.

Re:Stephen Fry

[zach_the_lizard]

Government belongs to the People

That's what I said, until those funny men in the black uniforms removed me from the White House lawn for trespassing.

Re:Stephen Fry

[commodore64_love]

>>>Spoken like a true 13 year old.

Spoken like a man who never paid attention in history class. The UK wouldn't have the freedoms it enjoys today, if it wasn't for the bloodshed of the 1600s which eventually led to the Bill of Rights. And of course there are other examples - Eastern Europe is now free thanks to uprisings. France executed its monarch to form the first french republic. Rome overthrew the ancient tyrannical kings and founded the "res publica" circa 500 B.C. adopting the slogan SPQR - "The Senate and the People of Rome"

History shows that freedom is not given. It is taken by force and power restored where it belongs (with the people).

If a judge TRIES to take-away your right of free speech, his verdict has no meaning, and can be ignored. He has overstepped his authority because no one take away your rights. So I say - ignore the verdict and publish your story. If the judge continues down this path and still tries to take-away your inalienable right to use your own mouth to speak, then he needs to be imepached. And if he refuses to step down, then the People need to exercise their just authority, and remove him by force, and replace him with a new judge that understand he is a *servant* of the People, not a master. "From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural fertilizer." - Thomas Jefferson.

Simon Singh

[Bifurcati]

Now if Simon Singh could just win his case, then maybe the world will move one step closer to free and open speech. Security through obscurity never helped anyone in any context (*), and the more knowledge one has the better decisions one can make.

(*) Counterexamples welcome...

Re:Simon Singh

[EasyTarget]

Here's a counterexample.. two in fact.

20 years ago my motobike was not stolen, even after the thieves had laboriously sliced a chain and wired the ignition. Why? Because the engine would cut out within 10 seconds of starting, eventually they gave up and left. The engine cutting out was down to a obscure little security system I designed, built and fitted myself, killed the ignition for 2 seconds out of every 10 unless a magnet was held in the correct place as the ignition was turned on. The thieves probably never even suspected it was deliberate, they probably thought the bike was a lemon.. which is arguably true ;-)

My server, which has no open public SSH port.. Unless you know exactly where to look and when.

Both of these work because they are genuinely obscure single implementations. In order to break them the attacker would need to know that it exists, and then spend time analysing the unit to break it. Even if they know there is a hidden layer of defence, is the payout (a crummy motorcycle, control of my printer and access to my photos and porn collection) worth their time to break it?

The sort of Security through Obscurity you describe fails because it is identically implemented in millions of devices, ie. It is not really Obscure, it's just a secret. And if you break it in one place you break it in all places. The payout for finding and breaking it is much, much, greater.

Re:Simon Singh

[arethuza]

Stop being sensible about this kind of thing, it upsets a lot of the "Security Experts" out there.

Worrying precedent

[abigsmurf]

It's great when this happens to a big business... But what about when it happens to individuals and victims?

To use an example. Imagine a celebrity's 13 year old daughter gets raped and there's a court order banning the publication of any information that can identify her. Will she have to deal with so many blogs reporting on it that the court order becomes pointless? Will she then have to live with horrific details of her attack being public knowledge?

With the Rihanna leaked pictures showing the results of her attack, it's become pretty clear to me that a good portion of the blogging community are devoid of tact and decency. It's only a matter of time before something of the nature of what I described happening.

Re:Worrying precedent

[Hozza]

This case is (fortunately) nothing like the examples you give.

This was about a question in Parliament. i.e. Statements publicly made, by public representatives in a place where freedom of speech is protected to the highest extent in the UK. The statements were available to anyone who looked at the records.

The idiot lawyers then tried to prevent a newspaper from reprinting those statements, bringing into doubt the entire system of freedom of speech and press in the UK. (note to non-UK readers, there is no UK constitution to protect free speech).

The bloggers (and more importantly, pretty much every other part of the UK media) were entirely right to repeatedly report on the gross misuse of UK libel law.

One down, an unknown number to go.

[netpixie]

According to the last issue of Private Eye there are quite a few of these super-injunctions currently being enforced (i.e. injunctions that not only stop you from saying something, but stop you from telling anyone that you've been injuncted).

I'd like a few more of them to be twittered, at least so we know that something's being hidden, even if we don't know what it is.

(and I know injuncted isn't the right word, but I don't know what is)

Re:One down, an unknown number to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

"enjoined"

Re:One down, an unknown number to go.

[Bazzargh]

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)

Massive headline FAIL

[petes_PoV]

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.

Re:Massive headline FAIL

[L4t3r4lu5]

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...

Re:Massive headline FAIL

[vague disclaimer]

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.

Full Report

[ThoughtMonster]

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

Britain - Libel capital of the work.

[GammaStream]

Hopefully this will motivate the courts and Parliament to do something about the problem of people coming to our country and using our courts to solve their petty grievances due to our ridiculous libel laws. The wikipedia article on libel tourism is particularly good in this regard. A lawyer on Newsnight (available on iplayer) last night listed the example of a Ukrainian business man who was suing a Ukrainian website for libel in the British courts under the justification that there happened to be some people in the UK who can read Ukrainian. This sort of stuff has simply got to stop. To help, sign the petition on the the no.10 website and the website 38 degrees is also running a campaign.

Errr...no

[mccalli]

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

Cheers,
Ian

Restore? You can't restore what was never there

[evilandi]

The Slashdot headline "restore" is wrong. England and Wales have never had freedom of speech. It cannot be "restored", it was never there.

We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom. Now I'll readily admit that sometimes - often, perhaps - megacorporates and in particular the law firm Carter Fuck try to abuse the system so that they also prevent inconvenient truths from slipping out.

But would I want to live in a country where people can spread lies about each other with no legal redress? No. The problems with freedom of speech go way beyond shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. England and Wales have always regarded responsibilities above freedoms; in this case, the responsibility to get the facts right.

The US gets many things right, and a few things wrong. The USA's bonkers bible-belt religious fundamentalism, for instance, would never be tolerated in England and Wales, as most of it is demonstrably factually incorrect. England and Wales would never suffer from a Kansas-style education system which promoted creationism over science. So, whilst I respect your country's achievements, please don't try to sell me "freedom of speech" as a cure-all. It's no more a cure-all than the snake oil which I understand your forefathers were so keen on selling in the days of your Wild West.

Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there

[yoshi_mon]

We English and Welshmen value correctness above freedom.

Who's correctness? Who's values? Therein lies the rub.

A system that is fully open always will have issues with 'wrong' theories. But it protects the good ones too. I honestly feel what your saying and good peer review is key. But your idea that openness is a bad thing is flawed.

Re:Restore? You can't restore what was never there

[ZorbaTHut]

The problem with "freedom of correctness" is how many so-called "correct" things later turn out to be incredible lies. Correctness requires someone who can objectively judge whether something is correct, and pretty much the entire history of the world is a repeated, blatant demonstration that nobody really knows what is objectively "correct" or not until - at best - a few decades down the road.