Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Issues Gag Order For Twitter

Posted by timothy on from the good-luck-with-that dept.

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."

3 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Oh boy... by Retron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oh boy... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Injunction laws are dead dead dead dead. Unless you're going to turn the UK into the Peoples Republic of China, the judge is wasting his time and everyone else's. Whether injunctions are good or bad is utterly and completely and now permanently irrelevant. A law that cannot be enforced is a pointless law and should simply be removed by legislators.

      The day is done. The Internet has made gag laws pointless. You might be able to go after British subjects who break the injunction, if you can figure out who they are, but the US has become so angry at the UK being used for libel tourism that the odds of any American-based site actually having to provide the identities of British subjects to a British court is extremely low.

      There's no solution here. The law has been rendered pointless. The British Parliament has dragged its heels about this for so long, despite demands that it start updating its injunction laws, and has basically made the whole thing pointless. Maybe that was the plan, don't do anything, let the Internet make the judiciary impotent and then shrug and go "Oh well, sorry 'bout that."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Protection, not prevention by SlithyMagister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.