Slashdot Mirror
Judge Issues Gag Order For Twitter
the simurgh writes with this excerpt from Reuters: "A British judge has banned Twitter users from identifying a brain-damaged woman in one of the first attempts to prevent the messaging website from revealing sensitive information. The ruling follows the publication on Twitter on Sunday of a list of celebrities alleged to have tried to cover up sexual indiscretions by obtaining court gag orders. The injunction, dated May 12 and seen by Reuters on Friday, includes Twitter and Facebook in the list of media prohibited from disclosing the information. It was issued in the Court of Protection in the case of a mother who wants to withdraw life support from her brain-damaged daughter. It prevents the identification of the woman and those caring for her."
If ever there was a way to get information out and about, trying to gag Twitter and Facebook is it! And once it's leaked, it's out there forever.
Now that it's banned on twitter, it'll be the number one trending topic.
Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
Identify that brain damaged woman. It's for free speech.
We should start a pool for how long it will be until someone posts that info here. Of course, by the time we got it organized that will probably have already happened.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
Well this bound to fail no doubt, but I think the judge already know this? From the article:
"They (injunctions) depend really on people's willingness to follow the rules rather than any ability to force it on them," [intellectual property and media partner Keith Arrowsmith] told Reuters when asked about Twitter.
So really the judge is just asking Twitter and Facebook very nicely to not talk about it. Ineffectual by design.
I'll be sure it's on twitter, blogs, facebook, etc It's one thing not to do something out of your own judgement but it's more fun when someone uppity thinks they can control others and force them to conform.
They must be trying to protect the identity of that lady at the Royal Wedding with the pastafarian hat.
Information can't be stopped. If it's out, it is useless try to stop to spread it legally. If you know censors or TPTB, then it's another talk.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I'd fully support not identifying her. if there was no gag order, well pro-lifers are asshats. All over-broad gag orders must be defied.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Information like this shouldn't be banned...It isn't going to work.
A better approach would be to ignore or scorn those who would post such personal information about something that is purely a painful family issue.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Those bewigged fossils in the law courts really are living in a different age. Someone needs to give the poor things a crash course on what the internet is and how it works. I realise the sort of people who studied law are usually the sort who think using a pocket calculator is major techno kudos but it really is time they dragged themselves into the late 20th century, never mind the 21st.
So, we have a highly personal life and death situation between a mother, her brain-damaged daughter, and the medical staff who are directly involved.
Short of any of those individuals posting something about this to twitter, how the fuck is this 1) anyone elses business, and 2) why is it being used as a free speech case against twitter, and the Internet*?
Are they really using the above medical scenario to try and pass precedent for a favorable outcome on a untouched technical meets speech legal arena? This smells of someone trying to get a 'trial case' through with a favorable ruling so that future cases can compound on it, stifling to a degree, free speech (yes, I know it's Englnd..). Tasteless and Classless indeed!
If there are a lot of people who have a problem with life support being pulled (hence the reason for the banning?), maybe they can help accrue the funds to help it continue. I'm sure it was very difficult for the family to consider. Or does the public just want to complain/see a hanging?
I've had to make a decision to remove extraordinary medical treatments from my father. It was not easy, but it was his wish. I discussed it with other members of the family. I only regret that his body lived for 3 more weeks before he died. I wish we could have ended his life quicker, pain free. He wasted away. I could be more humane towards a dying animal than towards my father. That's just sad.
I'd hope that my family would choose similarly if I ever need this decision made about me. I'd want them to have closure and move on as best they could. A quick death would be appreciated when the time came.
I'm certain the judge and the petitioners thought they were doing the best they could by asking to block this information publication. It shows little understanding of the web and internet.
I will not attempt to find out who this was. Sure, I'm curious, but my humanity tells me to leave these people alone.
Religious fanatics - screw you. This is real, not some imaginary friend you can "prey" to for wishes to come true.
A few weeks ago, my Aunt died and I expect my mother to pass away in the next year or so. She is ready and has made her wishes known to me and the other family members. I'm certain that a few will want to do everything they can to prolong her suffering. That is not her wish.
Have this discussion with your family. Having your wishes in writing helps, but they can overrule those at the time. Have the talk before it is too late. Don't leave them guessing. They will wonder for the rest of their lives and it can eat away at them if there's any doubt.
...were Twitter and Facebook "media?" The point of a gag order on a media agency is that you can tell a group of a few individuals who adhere to a common code of conduct not to do something. That just doesn't work when you tell a massive group of millions of people who don't read or know of the existence of certain gag orders not to do something.
Since how can a British judge have jurisdiction over a US Company? Are the Twitter uses going to be polled on whether they are Brit or not, and if they, pre-emptively slap their wrists with a harsh cry of "Don't eye try it, matey!"
My web domain.
surely the only way to stop twitter users from posting the information is to tell every twitter user who they are gagged from posting about, otherwise someone could easily post it without knowing they are breaking the gagging order.
Blazing Spiders
Seriously -- The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA provide Twitter, Facebook, Slashdot, and any other user generated content providers protection against their users' blatant disregard for retarded orders such as these.
Effectively, The Facebook or Twitter staff themselves can't release the info on their home pages / blogs / etc, but we, as users, can post whatever the hell we want (esp. in responce to a blog post by a Twitter or Facebook employee's saying that they have been gaged against releasing the information).
It's the 1st amendment because it's the most important one -- they can't inhibit the spread of information if it wants to be free; To do so is unconstitutional.
This superinjunction is only vaild in UK. Everywhere else it does not have any legal meaning. So it can save too be ignored if you are not in the UK.
(Sorry for spelling errors. Firefox Spell check does not work on slashdot with the new comment boxes.)
The point of the order is not to prevent people identifying the family. This is a mistake common to law-abiding people -- thinking that a law or a court order prevents a behaviour. Such a law/order can never do so, however, it gives the people harmed by a breach of the law/order a legal remedy. "a lock only stops an honest man", however if a dishonest one breaks that lock, the crime is more severe than had he merely walked in through an unlocked door. Without the order, bringing attention to this family is merely reprehensible socially inexcusable behaviour, now it is a crime, and the might of the law can be brought to bear on those who ignore the order.
Seriously, it's not long, it'll only take a minute of your time.
As far as the article I would really like to read documents relative to the gag order and the source of the news; as mentioned in a few comments, is this gag imposed on twitter itself or users using twitter (the twitters legalese is specific on the subject and knowing UK judges anything is possible). Also, is the gag order specific to UK users or does this judge think we still live in colonial times (I repeat: anything is possible).
I could go on but as I was typing I stopped caring...
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
From what I can tell, most Twitter users are brain-damaged. The writing alone will identify them immediately!
In the American (English) language, there are terms that suddenly pop up out of nowhere after not having been used publically for decades or ever. Now everyone is gonna use "Gag order" like it's common daily parlance. Same with Recession, a nearly fabricated word that suddenly got thrown around everywhere like nothing.
Several tedious Z-list celebrities have demanded Twitter user @injunctionsuper post details of their tawdry and squalid lives too.
[REDACTED] tweeted: "Rumur that I hv super-injunction preventing publication of 'intimate' photos of me n my bank account. NOT TRUE! Also, tits. FER FUXAKE PLS RT"
The revelation that decent British people can read things on Internet services that aren't even based in the UK has left celebrities and politicians shocked, shocked that people actually have ways of gaining information that aren't filtered through the hamstrung UK print press. "Clearly," said minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries Ed Vaizey, "we need to protect our valuable pop music and football industries with a Great Firewall of Britain without delay."
"In the modern world of the Internet, the secret or super-injunction may no longer be an effective tool in the administration of justice," said BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman, in an attempt on the world record for fatuity.
"We tried to bugger the Internet last year," said Peter Mandelson, "but did you listen?"
A spokesman for Wikipedia suggested that journalists looking for space-filler stories just fuck off until August as usual.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
The "pro lifers" in the grandparent post are the people being gagged and the grandparent post the poster is decrying the fact that without such a gag order the the "pro lifers" would be trying to turn the personal and painful decision to terminate life support into a media and internet circus just like with Schivo (spelling?).
So the poster you are criticizing is saying "yea, to give this family some peace I would support the court order" and you are what...? saying it is being mean to the people who would make this family's pain into political hay for their own gain to support a judge telling them to STFU?
Your position would be spiteful indeed, except your post makes no damn sense.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Super injunctions are no longer made in English courts and none have been made for over six months.
He is saying that while he doesn't like the pro-lifers who may want to make the woman's death and how she is cared for into a show. I don't see why he would expect this in Britain (US ok but not Britain). The gag order is to stop people from harassing the family when they need to make decisions about how to care for their loved one NOT to protect some pro-lifers. So what is your point?
I would argue that knowing her name means nothing to most people and that those who were compelled to know would have found out anyway. If anything, asking for "privacy" in this day and age is going to get you a lot more notoriety than just shutting up.
@ajeynath
I think that either the judge is so full of himself that he thinks that his "super-injunction" will carry weight past the UK, or he's on crack... the jury's still out. Personally, I could care less one way or the other. The thing that pissed me off is the sheer balls of this clown thinking that he can just arbitrarily gag websites that aren't even in the UK... he really needs to wake up and smell the coffee (or tea).
Stone
The UK will get right on it. The moment the US sorts out its insane patent laws, its copyright laws, respects international law on war crimes etc etc.
Pot calling Kettle, come in Kettle!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.