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.
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.
The issue is that the court is trying to prevent nut jobs from harassing the family about the decisions they make regarding end of life care. I don't personally agree with the notion in this case, however the intention of releasing the information is to harass the family rather than over legitimate free speech grounds. They could just as easily have a debate without releasing the names, the point of the names is to encourage people to contact the family in a vexatious way.
The UK is much more strict about such things and celebrity are frequently able to get injunctions to block damaging reports there than we are in the US.
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
Not everything is a matter of what is or isn't legally enforceable. The injunction makes a statement that disclosing the information is unfair to the people already victimized by the situation and just plain wrong.
That's the judge's opinion and not an absolute truth, but coming from a professional judge representing the community at large who has first-hand information on the subject matter, people are on notice that they're anti-social jerks if they defy the order without some kind of compelling reason. Note: making the point that the technology can't be stopped is not a compelling reason.
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.
Entirely wrong. This also prevents newspapers and TV from reporting that this issue was on Farcebook or Twitter.
I also gives explicit moral support for the family affected that they are right in not wanting to have this dragged out in the open.
My guess is the judge in question knows exactly what he is doing and what effects it will have. I applaud his decision.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Laws don't prevent anything, just because somebody wrote somewhere 'Thou shalt not kill' has no bearing on your ability to kill.
The use and appropriateness of injunctions doesn't change as a function of technology and the injunction will in fact have an effect; it will deter some people, the
fact that it won't deter 100% is immaterial. The real problem is the exposure created by the injunction. That exposure only exists because it was the first injunction (according the author) that explicitly referenced twitter. The 2nd, 3rd or 100th time there's an injunction explicitly referencing twitter nobody will talk about it and the injunction will have roughly the same effect as it would have 20, 40 or 80 years ago.
You are insulting the legal system in a full-fledged attempt to mockery, but I can't read any rationale among your words why you are doing that.
If you just criticize them, and don't explain why you are doing it (I'm sorry, it is not obvious to me), then you are trolling.
Your reply to Livius below doesn't help to make things clearer.
It'd be time for some people to learn how to argument their positions, instead to spit venom on anything moving nearby.
42.
The UK was more strict. The government looks to be ready to reform the law, but I'd say that the willingness of British subjects to violate the law by the use of foreign websites means the government and the courts have literally had this power ripped from them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
People are judged on their actions in a way that the tide is not.
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
Since injunctions like this have existed for all of the past 15 years of popular Internet and have worked at minimising information spread in the UK without anyone being up in arms... I'd say the law is effective.
Sounds like you just have something against people "who studied law", though, which is a bizarre appeal to ignorance. Established law mostly adapted to the Internet quite well, as is the way with common law systems. It's new legislation lobbied for by special interests with a good knowledge of the Internet which has damaged things, from the pressure which produced the IWF all the way to the draconian DEA.
In practice, how is it going to work? If Joe Public knows or sees "X", unless the court publishes the very information which the injunction is trying to prevent being published, how is he to know that the particular fact "X" is the one covered by the injunction? Or does the injunction prevent any discussion or mention of any brain damaged people just in case the person is the one covered by the injunction?
From what I can tell, most Twitter users are brain-damaged. The writing alone will identify them immediately!
Ending the life of someone who was not dying is "end of life care"? You belong in an Orwell novel.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
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
Frequently these people are not alive in any meaningful sense of the term. Their bodies stay warm because it turns out that if you shoot nutrients straight into their veins and pump air in and out of their lungs at roughly a normal breathing rate, then most of the autonomous processes manage to keep some stuff going. You could cut their head off and they'd continue to "live" in the same way.
I don't call that "alive".
"how the fuck is this 1) anyone else's business, and 2) why is it being used as a free speech case against twitter, and the Internet" 1) - No idea 2) - Because we don't know which side wants the injunction. For all we know, it could be the Medical staff who want this kept quiet and the mum who wants people to know.
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?
Speaking as a member of the British National Health Service (in a medical capacity), I must say that this is a tad confusing. Although the family of someone in a persistent vegetative state will certainly be consulted as to their views on "pulling the plug," it is not a decision that is ever made by the family or even the closest next of kin - the medical team, following the Consultant's instructions will make that decision. I personally have been involved in end-of-life care in many cases like these and we have never, ever, allowed families to make these decisions. So why make the injunction to protect the family? They're not the ones ending someone's life. Although I suppose there's enough morons out there that will decide the family must pay for the NHS's actions... But again, I've never seen that happen either.
10 PRINT "SCUNTHORPE"(2 TO 5): GO TO 10
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.
Identify this Anonymous Coward. It's for free speech.
There's nothing like $HOME
What a very odd definition of "law". What planet do you live on where laws work like that?
Laws do prevent crime, they prevent it by providing a disincentive to commuting an act. A law is written "if you kill, you will go to jail" not "Thou shalt not kill". A written law must define an act and a punishment. It is the risk of that punishment which prevents crime.
Now a law that is not enforced (I.E. no punishment is applied), that is completely ineffective.
it will deter some people, the fact that it won't deter 100% is immaterial
So punish those it does not deter, as I said above, a law is only effective if it is enforced.
During an ongoing court case, maintaining the privacy of the accused is paramount to a fair trial. Even if they are guilty as sin, they deserve to have their trial heard fairly. I assume you dont disagree with this.
Now the media is well known to be very biased and unfair when dealing with almost anything. Excess media attention can alter the outcome of a trial, even to a point where an unjust decision can be made to appease the media as was the case with Lindsey Chamberlin.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
They don't prevent, they dissuade. As I said, laws have no bearing on your ability to commit a crime. A metal detector is a form of prevention, a law that says you can't carry a gun into an airport does not actually prevent you from doing it.
The rest of your post seems to be restating what I said, you somehow misread my point by misconstruing the nuance about prevent. The GP was saying the injunction would have no effect because it didn't actually prevent the transmission via Twitter. My point was it would because like any law it acts to dissuade.
By dissuading they prevent it. You're next statement would add wieght to that, if it were not based on bad assumptions.
Actually they do, law changes the likelihood of a person commuting a crime. The fear that they will be fined or jailed for doing so, this is an effective motivator. This motivation is a good prevention mechanism.
A metal detector will not stop you from carrying a gun into an airport. You have this a bit backwards.
Just so you're 100% clear on this, a metal detector is a form of detection (surprise, surprise) not enforcement or prevention.
This is what stops you, a metal detector does no such thing, as evidenced by the security guards which walk through them with firearms attached to their hip (in Australia, Federal Police agents must walk through the metal detector, cutting around it is illegal).
What stops the average Joe from walking into the airport with a firearm is the knowledge that the law will punish them for doing so. The aforementioned Australian Federal Police officers will stop him, charge him and the justice system will punish him. This thought is what prevents Joe from thinking about taking a firearm through an airport security station. If not for the law, the justice system would not be able to do anything, the AFP would merely be thugs.
You seem to be stuck on the wrong idea that the law or the consequences of breaking them does not decrease the likelihood that someone will commit a crime, where as in reality it does because a potential criminal knows they will be punished for breaking that law.
That is because you continue to hold on to this bad belief that the law is not effective at curbing crime, where as you admit that it is dissuasion but insist that this is different to prevention. If this were true, laws would have no effect on crime what so ever.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.