Twitter Sued By British Soccer Player

norriefc writes "Here in the UK super injunctions are all the rage. These are injunctions that bar the press from even mentioning that the injunctions exist. Recently a Twitter account exposed several of these super injunctions and named several people involved and what their alleged indiscretions were. Now one 'famous' soccer player is trying to sue Twitter and the yet to be named tweeters for invasion of privacy, apparently in ignorance of the Streisand effect. I'm doubtful of an American company paying much attention to UK anti-free-speech laws"

Comments

Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Mr_Congeniality]

Let's see if this makes the Guinness Book of World Records for "Shortest time a case lasted in court until being thrown out." Twitter is a social networking site. If I had people talking trash about me on their Facebook wall, it would make no sense at all to sue Facebook because of what that person said.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if this makes the Guinness Book of World Records for "Shortest time a case lasted in court until being thrown out."

Twitter is a social networking site. If I had people talking trash about me on their Facebook wall, it would make no sense at all to sue Facebook because of what that person said.

Assuming CTB is Ryan Giggs (which is a popular belief) then's he's certainly not short of cash. (The Evening Standard has his net worth at £22 million - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/mailFrameset.do?url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=420790&in_page_id=1779).

I think the only reason it'll be thrown out is that Twitter is not UK based. If it were, then as it exercises some editorial control (i.e. removes spam and illegal comments on request) it's viewed as a publisher and therefore is treated the same as a newspaper and would fall foul of our (super)injuction laws.

I run a big football (soccer for the septics) site/forum (thankfully not connected to Ryan Giggs) and there is (we're told on very good authority) a super-injunction placed by one of the club's owners. Not being mainstream media, we've no legitimate way of finding out the details of the injunction, yet we can be prosecuted if one of our forum members publishes the allegations.

The law in the UK surrounding citizen journalism and internet discussion is an absolute ass. Value your constitutionally protected freedom of speech

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Panoptes]

As I understand it, the site in question is not being sued - they're being bullied into revealing the identies of the Twits who made the posts.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Another, completely]

Maybe not sue to get money for yourself, but causing the person who wrote it to pay a fine and court fees is a possibility in Switzerland. The franc is about par with the American dollar these days, so that's a $1,500 penalty for calling someone names on Facebook.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Cornwallis]

I run a big football (soccer for the septics) site/forum...

What's that, a footbal site for people with infections?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to do with infections. It's cockney rhyming slang.
septics == septic tanks == yanks

Australians often say 'seppos' too, stands for 'septic (tanks)'.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[jpapon]

Wait, people commonly refer to Americans as septic tanks?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[boristhespider]

Yep. It's rhyming slang rather than general abuse (unless you take offense at being called a yank, of course, which I guess quite a few people could).

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[QuasiSteve]

As much as I may disagree with the legal action on the part of this sportsguy (if it is an actual law, shouldn't the lawmakers by the way of the magistrate / DA / whatsit be chasing down whoever broke the court ordered silencing?)...

they're being bullied

I fail to see how it is bullying. It's a legal action. I'm presuming they asked nicely first and Twitter told them that they have no intent of releasing that information voluntarily and come back with a court order while snickering as they realize the many cross-jurisdictional issues at play not to mention Twitter's London office plans, etc. One step in obtaining a court order in what now appears to be a civil matter would be to file a legal claim and thus sue.

It's also hardly bullying in terms of some megacorp going against a poor widow whose only grandchild happened to download some MP3. This is a sportsguy, granted - one with 22 million quid or so, going against a company whose worth is, depending on the source you go with, anywhere between 11 and 13 BILLION dollars.
How is that bullying? Unless the value of the pound vs the dollar skyrocketed at some point.. did the rapture hit the U.S. while skipping Europe somehow?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[91degrees]

Not exactly "commonly". But cockney rhyming slang is often used in Britain.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[jpapon]

After reading up on Cockney rhyming slang, I have to say, it is one awesome obfuscation of language.

Must be damned hard to keep track of though.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[bamf]

Stating the obvious but:

septic = septic tank = yank = americans.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Nick Ives]

Not being mainstream media, we've no legitimate way of finding out the details of the injunction, yet we can be prosecuted if one of our forum members publishes the allegations.

I thought that in order to be bound by an injunction, you had to be served it?

As I understand it, every time a superinjunction is issued it gets sent out to a massive number of media organisations telling them that there is an injunction that they can't report on, but not revealing what the injunction is about. That's how everyone in the media knows which injunctions they can't report on.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder the new standard for English is American mid-western.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[maxwell demon]

Stating the obvious but:

septic = septic tank = yank = americans.

Obvious for whom?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Golly, I've just been bowled over by obvious that wasn't!

It's also lovely how you associate Americans with a sewage containment vessel.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[pr100]

I think the only reason it'll be thrown out is that Twitter is not UK based. If it were, then as it exercises some editorial control (i.e. removes spam and illegal comments on request) it's viewed as a publisher and therefore is treated the same as a newspaper and would fall foul of our (super)injuction laws.

Twitter is in San Francisco, and the writ of the English courts haven't run in those part for a couple of centuries. It raises the question of what the point of getting a court order is in the first place.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Mr2001]

septic = septic tank = yank = americans.

Obvious for whom?

obvious for whom = temple of doom = Indiana Jones

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[91degrees]

I think that's the point. It's basically a tribal thing to establish a difference between locals and non-locals, at least according to many theories.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Phreakiture]

Obvious only to those familiar with Cockney rhyming slang, which is going to be an extreme minority in the US.

Go on, click the link and have a butcher's.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I'm sure those who posted those twits have 13 BILLION dollars under their beds, just in case they say something a rich football player doesn't like.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[QuasiSteve]

But the twits who posted the tweets aren't the ones being sued.

As far as the twits go, there's basically a few groups.

There's the "lulz Streisand!" folk who don't fall under the jurisdiction of the court ordered silence. They've got little to fear.

There's the ones that do fall under its jurisdiction, but given that "lulz Streisand!" is in effect, I doubt some random chap from Liverpool has anything to fear either.

Then there's the ones that not only fall under its jurisdiction but are the source, being either directly ordered under the court ordered silence or having relations with one who is. Those may have something to fear.. but then again, they broke a court order. I'm pretty sure that's something that lands you in hot waters anywhere.

But you're right.. woe is the poor lad/lass who went against the court order in what he or she perceived to be unjust law and may have to defend his/her beliefs instead of being an anonymous vigilante :)

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[bruce_the_loon]

Since California was Spanish and then Mexican before becoming American long after the War of Independence, the writ of the English courts have never run in those parts.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[pluther]

To be fair, the end, if not the path to get there, was pretty obvious from context.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[countertrolling]

IT might be bad in the UK, but Google is somehow keeping 'le nom de la femme de chambre' off its pages... Somebody has a lot more power than some soccer player or even UK law.. I think that's a much bigger story. Will Slashdot pick up on it?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[arisvega]

it would make no sense at all to sue Facebook because of what that person said

Oh, but it would; sue the company, and you make it their problem-

I am not saying it is right, but I do not understand your comment since this happens all the time, and all around the world; see blog hosting sites, streaming sites, torrent linking sites, file sharing sites ... EVERYBODY does it, they always go after the first person they can identify, and that will usually be the hosting site.

Real life (off-internet) analogy; you throw a party, someone craps on your neighbor's lawn (great party) - who do you think your neighbor will go after?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[dingen]

It's not a question of association, but of rhyming. Septic tank rhymes with yank, there's no other link.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

** cough cough ** gifle+hostesse+DSK ** cough cough **
People do not see what they do not want to see

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[JWSmythe]

So, septic tank, rather than say gas tank, petrol tank, oxygen tank, external fuel tank (like the ET on the all-American Space Shuttle), water tank. Or drifting away from containers, battle tank, M1 Abrams tank, Sherman tank, .... Or frank (like frankfurter, a generally phallic reference),

    But why focus on just term "yank" anyways? If you follow the etymology of it, it originates from a disparaging term for Dutch settlers in New Amsterdam, and around the time of the colonial war (err, American Revolutionary War), it was used as a disparaging term for anyone in the colonies (to be the United States of America). That could be considered rather rude.

    But I guess it's all good, since any time a limey, buck toothed, pale skinned, small dicked, citizen of the Queens empire calls me a "yank", I just smile and say "Good show chap. Oh look, it's time for tea and a punch up".

    Hmm, it has been a while since anyone's called me a yank. Most prefer to call me Mr. Smythe, and I respond politely to them in kind. It's called respect, which it seems some people still haven't learned.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying is that it's the literary equivalent of wearing a hat at an angle that's not facing forward. It marks the person as someone who doesn't mind appearing stupid, as long as they fit in with their crowd of stupid people.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[dingen]

So, septic tank, rather than say gas tank, petrol tank, oxygen tank, external fuel tank (like the ET on the all-American Space Shuttle), water tank. Or drifting away from containers, battle tank, M1 Abrams tank, Sherman tank, .... Or frank (like frankfurter, a generally phallic reference),

Yes, one could have also used "Sherman" as a reference to Yanks, as Sherman is easily understood to be a "Sherman tank" and tank rhymes with Yank. Congratulations, you now understand Cockney Rhyming Slang.

But why focus on just term "yank" anyways? ... *blah blah blah* ... It's called respect, which it seems some people still haven't learned.

If you think someone is lacking in respect when referring to Americans as septics, then you truly are very American indeed.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Stormy Dragon]

soccer for the septics

I know it's trendy in the UK to pretend otherwise, but calling it soccer originated with you people, not Americans. It was an abreviation for association football, which is what you used to call it to distinguish it from rugby football.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Antique Geekmeister]

And there were thousands of years of native American cultures there before the Europeans showed up. It's the last group in charge that sets the policies. I'm not aware of any US treaty with the UK or with the UN that would mandate the US follow such injunctions. I'm sure the UK would love US based companies to follow such policies.

It's a troubling principle. The fact that it was used for a "famous footballer", rather than being generally used for rape victims or abused children, indicates that it's main purpose is to protect the reputation of the powerful. If this "famous footballer" didn't want his name all over tweet, he shouldn't have been straying without knowledge of his wife. (I've had an acquantance suggest an affair, with the knowledge of their spouse: we were all at dinner. It can happen.)

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[JWSmythe]

Yes, one could have also used "Sherman" as a reference to Yanks, as Sherman is easily understood to be a "Sherman tank" and tank rhymes with Yank. Congratulations, you now understand Cockney Rhyming Slang.

    The difference there would be that the word "Sherman" comes from the name of the American General William Tecumseh Sherman. The tank itself was well respected as a strong and efficient machine.

    "Septic", on the other hand, still refers to a box full of shit.

If you think someone is lacking in respect when referring to Americans as septics, then you truly are very American indeed.

    It takes an American to bother understanding the language they speak, and can recognize an insult built upon another insult? Interesting. I guess I honestly have some misconceptions of how the rest of the world operates.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[h4rr4r]

That is because it's slow and simple, like the people.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[dingen]

In rhyming slang, the word you're using doesn't hold any significance or meaning. It's about what it refers to and then rhymes with it. The fact a Sherman tank was a nice piece of equipment in it's day is completely besides the point, because you're not talking about Sherman tanks at all when you use it in rhyming slang. Equally so, the meaning of the word "septic" isn't relevant at all.

By the way, thanks for the etymology story of the term "Yankee". I love etymology and love it even more when it involves the Dutch language. I'm not yet sure which of the three theories in the Wikipedia article I'm going to believe though (Jan-Kees, Janneke or Jan Kaas).

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

One theory was it originated as a way of making conversations hard for outsiders to understand, including the police. Unfortunately this falls flat on its face when you consider that most police came from working class backgrounds in the areas they worked, so they'd grow up hearing it and understand it just fine.

"Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels" was full of it; you'd have to go out of your way to find anyone who actually uses it as much as they did in the film though.

I think it mostly gets used today in throw away statements when you want to inject a little humour, "It's gone a little bit Pete" gets used at work from time to time; in reference to "Pete Tong" (he's an English DJ), which is rhyming slang for "wrong". I use "tea leafing git" when someone borrows something and doesn't return it, "tea leaf" rhyming with "thief".

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[_Shad0w_]

In the case of rhyming yank with septic tank, I doubt the derogatory nature was an accident.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[_Shad0w_]

Correct. We're not all so ignorant though; I don't actually care what people call it.

When talking to most Americans it removes ambiguity to refer to it as soccer, just as referring to "American Football" in the UK, when talking about the American game, removes the ambiguity for us. If you say "football" in the UK people will assume you're talking about soccer, if you say it in the US they'll assume you're talking about American Football. It's all about tailoring your language to your audience.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[MysteriousPreacher]

It takes an American to bother understanding the language they speak, and can recognize an insult built upon another insult? Interesting. I guess I honestly have some misconceptions of how the rest of the world operates.

Nope, you're over-thinking this. It's about as insulting as calling an Irishman a paddy, i.e. not very. The origin of the term doesn't necessarily reflect its modern usage. Berk is a classic example of this. It's used as a very mild insult, of the kind that you'd hear on daytime TV, yet it's rhyming slang for cunt. The long form is "Berkeley Hunt". Whether the originators thought this bunch of fox hunters were cunts is anyone's guess, but few people today even know the origin of the term, and I doubt many people who do would have any strong feelings either way for the Berkeley Hunt.

Take a look at a rhyming slang dictionary. You'll find that most of the terms used are pretty nonsensical. Stop being a berk. Enjoy some British culture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

OH MY GOD

STOP BEING REASONABLE

THIS IS SLASHDOT, FOR FUCK'S SAKE

This is Slashdot, which doesn't like me using ALL CAPS. Fuck Slashdot.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[rednip]

Lighten up Skippy!

I know a guy who became known by the nickname 'Skippy' and hated it. Plenty of seemingly well minded people told him to 'get used to it' or 'just go with it'. He worked on it, and eventually many stopped even in private conversations to which he wasn't a party. It was sad on some levels that a mentally challenged man have to make such an effort to reclaim his very name from what would be assigned to him by a random fool at the wrong time. I haven't seen him in years, or been around the same groups that he traveled, but I'm sure that some still call him 'Skippy' despite his objections to it.

Nicknames are that sticky. Some do it out of spite, because they can; sort of the way some rednecks relish jokes that use 'the n-word'; others use them out of habit even after promising not. I'm not sure of the origins of septic, but I suspect that it's use had a lot to do with 8 years of Bush. Likely its already starting to fall out of favor, but there has yet to be a 'cooler' word. The reason why such a language moves in such a fashion is that it's playful, most don't really hold any true spite. However, there is a real competitiveness to it and it's not likely to be 'flattering', perhaps a play on the fact that 'we' can't take a joke.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about the recent effort to impose sharia law!

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[jonbryce]

Why on earth would it be thrown out?

Step 1 - get a Norwich Pharmcal order against Twitter
Step 2 - get a Norwich Pharmcal order against The ISP identified in Step 1
Step 3 - either contempt of court proceedings or libel proceedings, or both, against the person identified in Step 2
Step 4 - profit

Note there are no question marks anywhere.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Good. As a second generation Chinese American there are still people calling me Chink. And that was from some younger generation, contradicts what you see on 2008 presidential elections results ( about younger people more tolerant to people of different culture and/or different skin tones).

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

You so don't get it. Look at the usage: the first word in the rhyming phrase goes to plural. How would that work with your examples?

As to 'Yank': a bit of history will help you there, but for that you'll need an education.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[onepoint]

I find that there is a simple loop hole to this problem for twitter. what's to stop the courts from issuing a black-hole order and block it?
can be done, and since British ISP have obey the rules, it might be doable. sure as heck would wake up a lot of people.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[dadioflex]

Thanks! Funniest run of comments I've read for a while. Hail Eris!

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[dr2chase]

Maybe we can get a super-duper-injunction on referring to USAians as "Septics"?
And if you violate our super-duper-injunction, it's double-secret-probation for you.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Culture20]

Nothing to do with infections. It's cockney rhyming slang. septics == septic tanks == yanks

It's rhyming slang rather than general abuse (unless you take offense at being called a yank, of course, which I guess quite a few people could).

So Cockney Brits won't be offended if I call them little pricks? prick==cock==cockney

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[gbjbaanb]

its a bit difficult not to report on something you don't know what you're not supposed to report on!

I understand the media is told what they're not to say. This is why the superinjunction is so stupid - everyone already knows. The super part is so they cannot even report on the existence of the injunction too.

so, they'll be told Giggsy shagged around, that they can't say that, and they also cannot say that they've been told not to say that.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[BitterOak]

I thought that in order to be bound by an injunction, you had to be served it?

Not true. If you have a good reason to suspect there's an injunction, you most certainly are bound by it. And if the story you are reporting is the fact there is a superinjuction, then clearly you have reason to believe there is one! Being an accessory to contempt of court makes you just as guilty as if you were in contempt of court yourself.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[antonyb]

Sherman Tank has an entirely different meaning in Rhyming Slang.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[fireylord]

W
Step 3 - either contempt of court proceedings or libel proceedings, or both, against the person identified in Step 2

It's err, not libel if it's true?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[jonbryce]

No, but you can get injunctions against untrue statements.
From my brief perusal of Twitter, either every premier league footballer is having it off with every female celebrity in the country, or the majority of the claims are false.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[jeremyp]

The tank itself was well respected as a strong and efficient machine.

That's the tank that the Germans referred to as the "Ronson" because it was a one touch lighter, or "Tommy cooker", "tommy" being slang for a British soldier. So I guess whether it's a Sherman tank or a septic tank you are in, you are in deep shit.

 

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[ferrgle]

Can we just call it kickball?
That would remove all ambiguity and I think it sounds quite good to.

(Most people I suggest it to don't agree with me though, and get quite upset with me)

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't quite got the hang of it.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[sumdumass]

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Suppose the news paper printed an article saying you were an unemployable idiot. You find this slanderous and request the new paper stop doing this, plus you want the name of the author of the article.

but the newspaper refuses to stop printing it and refuses to surrender the name of the person putting it into print. What do you do, you sue the newspaper for a vicarious liability and the people who are responsible for it showing up in print by generic name. The news paper then has to provide those names or admit it was them all along in their defense. The real people are sued and if the news paper didn't stop printing the crap, they are still liable for some damages.

Now substitute news paper with Fox News, Twitter, Face Book, slashdot or whatever. It's the same thing.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[RockDoctor]

Wait, people commonly refer to Americans as septic tanks?

Yes.

Speaking to people who were around at the time, the habit started in WW2, with lots of Yank soldiers and airmen being posted "over-paid, over-sexed and over here," and it wasn't exactly friendly.

The only guy I knew who could have commented on how things were in WW1 didn't say anything about this. But he was back in Flanders being gassed when the Americans turned up for that war, and he never said much because of the lung damage.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Stormy Dragon]

Not really, because there's also a game in the US called kickball (it's like baseball except using a large inflated ball that the "batter" kicks instead of hitting with a bat).

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[JWSmythe]

It still appears to be a tremendous leap from being called "Skippy" to being called sewage.

    Maybe friendly jest between ... well ... friends, is seriously different. It isn't like it started with "oh, I call my American friend septic sometimes, we laugh, and then drink a pint", it was said to a complete stranger. And now repeated over and over.

    It doesn't matter how you attempt to rationalize an insult, it's still an insult.

    But what would the English know about politeness, where the whole island is inbred anyways. Just sayin'

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[JWSmythe]

Take a look at a rhyming slang dictionary. You'll find that most of the terms used are pretty nonsensical. Stop being a berk. Enjoy some British culture:

Maybe I'm more like The Doctor than Mr. Logic. Your quaint traditions are very unusual, and I don't believe I'll ever become accustomed to them. But, let me try this out. Your mother is a whore. Did I do that quite right?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[boristhespider]

Yes, that's exactly how rhyming works.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[Chuq]

Er.. no.
For an American trying to get the hang of rhyming slang (though admittedly she's just copying, not really "learning it".. but still) check this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QItPPfvhxE - from Aussie show "Adam Hills In Gordon Street Tonight".

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash

[bluntos]

I hate no hot dogs on Friday!

Streisand effect

[unity100]

im all up for it. tell me - who is this person and what he has done. i am even going to activate my twitter account that i only used for 3 times, just for him/her. quick. and im in turkey. turks who have no business with that person, and brit tourists who flock to turkey will all know about that idiot. just let us know.

Re:Streisand effect

[Relyx]

Just search on Twitter for Imogen Thomas, the girl he had his affair with. His name will likely pop up in the first few tweets.

Re:Streisand effect

[kaiidth]

You want to know what is posted on twitter? Ask Google: 'football super injunction'. For me, the first link returned was something called 'CaughtOffside.com', who obviously need to be sued in England until the pips squeak.

Re:Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how the sexist press were telling us that no woman had taken out one of these and four have including Geordieland's people's princess who is in LA at the moment going to be a big TV star and actress.

Re:Streisand effect

[JaredOfEuropa]

Super injunctions exist to prevent the Streisand effect. Of course that only works when those who know of them, stick to them. In this case they need something stronger... double secret injuction?

Re:Streisand effect

[boristhespider]

She has? Over what?

Re:Streisand effect

[Dogtanian]

Although I live in the UK, I wasn't that interested in the alleged identity of the person, so I wasn't actively going digging or setting out to find out who it was anyway.

Still, while signing on to the UK Yahoo website to check one of my mail accounts, at the top of their "TRENDING NOW" list shown on the portal page was the name of a well-known British footballer which was a borderline dead-giveaway for me (unless some other story I didn't know about had gained massive prominence overnight).

Do I really care about that he's had an affair in itself? No, I couldn't give a toss. If this had just been something that had appeared on the front page of The Sun, I probably wouldn't have noticed and even if I had I wouldn't have cared. (I don't read The Sun partly because (a) who gives a **** who some celebrity slept with and (b) Rupert Murdoch can go DIAF).

I'd say it was more interesting that- despite having been around for donkeys years and now at the age where most top-flight players are winding down their careers at more obscure clubs, if not actively retired- he's still appparently playing top flight football for the same team he's been in for the past 20 years. Which is due some kind of respect anyway...

Re:Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Glassing someone in a pub.

Re:Streisand effect

[rhyder128k]

They also fail to point out that these women have knowingly slept with married men who have families and then attempted to make money off it by going to the press. Must be nice to be able to make a good living out of lying on ones back.

Re:Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many names come up except Imogen Thomas and Ryan Giggs, but I don't suppose it's Ryan Giggs, is it? I mean it can't be Ryan Giggs, he's married.

Re:Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

In USA, the same is called "gag order"

Re:Streisand effect

[Ash Vince]

Just search on Twitter for Imogen Thomas, the girl he had his affair with. His name will likely pop up in the first few tweets.

Imogen Thomas then decided to try and blackmail him into paying her 100,000 pounds to keep quiet. He has refused to pay and so she is desperate to tell her story to our gutter press instead.

I have little sympathy for him but I have even less for her. He has kids and they will also suffer as a result of this slapper and her greed (and his stupidity for having an affair in the first place)

Re:Streisand effect

[fireylord]

But that's not the same thing as what we are talking about here.

You lucky people have the First Amendment, whilst we get european law which cretinous judges selectively interpret in such a way as to strengthen the silencing they order. Go us Brits!

Re:Streisand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice to be able to make a good living out of lying on ones back.

Indeed. There was a glamour model who was a big coke user and she would turn up every so often in the Sunday papers detailing her amorous adventures and on Monday those same papers would be used for wrapping fish and chips. (No UK readers I am not writng about Lindsay-Dawn!)

Anyways onto important stuff. Who is the Member of Parliament using a superinjunction to prevent the revealation that he brought in a lady of the night? Why are the press not concerned about him? (Presuming he is a him of course!)

so who is it?

[coaxial]

Come on now. Someone has to know. Unfortunately all the talk about super injunctions I find is from UK sites that are subject to it. Let's have it now.

Re:so who is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The name of the woman involved (who wasn't able to afford a super-injunction so has been in the full glare of publicity about this) is Imogen Thomas. Now, do I really need to explain how to use the power of Twitter search to find all the information you need?

Re:so who is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ryan Giggs

a quick search will tell you. Though I would suggest you google for the images of the model (Imogen Thomas) in question instead.

Re:so who is it?

[Relyx]

Here's a handy search link

Re:so who is it?

[WizardMarnok]

I'm not allowed to comment. Anyway, the real loser in all this is Imogen's career as a musician. I've not heard her perform, but apprently she was doing gigs all year.

Re:so who is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Former Welsh international and present Man U superstar

Re:so who is it?

[Relyx]

Do you really think you will be singled out from the thousands of other people posting his name and sued? We are not even on Twitter here, just some nerdy bulletin board.

Anyway, this court action will be over in a few days. Surely he is not enough of an idiot to waste all that money on a futile battle. Besides, he has to file a court order in California and reveal his identity to get Twitter user details.

Re:so who is it?

[digitig]

It's on Wikipedia...

Re:so who is it?

[digitig]

Well, I can see why she would appeal to a footballer.

Re:so who is it?

[Relyx]

Wikipedia link

Re:so who is it?

[Seumas]

It's some chick I've never heard of from a shitty reality show and some dude I've never heard of. All of the American outlets are being fucking fucktards and using vague language to skirt naming the people involved. I guess they're to god damn fucking retarded to understand that the UK can't issue a gag order to the American press. This includes Slashdot. Fucking idiots. Put the names IN THE BLURB ON SLASHDOT.

Re:so who is it?

[yuri benjamin]

Woosh.

Re:so who is it?

[rhyder128k]

Yeah, her breasts are unusually unusually spherical.

Re:so who is it?

[LizardKing]

I found her to have a much more appealing figure before the boob job. And if you've ever had a girlfriend with breast implants, it's somewhat peculiar when her jubblies barely change position no matter whether she's upright or prone ...

Re:so who is it?

[rhyder128k]

Amen to what you just said. Each to his own, but I've never found fake breasts to be attractive.

Re:so who is it?

[TheLink]

Fake personality, fake breasts, fake eyelashes, fake hair extensions, fake nails, make up, etc.

All to get a "real man" with "real money" :).

Re:so who is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, even if you look for Ryaniar you will be led to Ryan Giggs to sue twitter. Those lawyers must have been really starving to make Ryan Giggs sue twitter on behalf of the anonymous footballer who was doing Imogen Thomas.

Re:so who is it?

[jeremyp]

Let me post a random article from Wikipedia.

Ryan Giggs

[Anonymous Coward]

Allegedly

Re:Ryan Giggs

[troc]

I'm fairly certain that 'allegedly' is unnecessary in this case. i.e it's Ryan Giggs, definitely. :p

Re:Ryan Giggs

[Anonymous Coward]

Definite or not, "allegedly" is just what you say after saying anything potentially libellous or controversial, true or not. As done constantly by Ian Hislop on: HIGNFY, for comedic effect.

Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an American site that isn't afraid of the UK's anti free speech laws, so why didn't you say it was Ryan Giggs?

Re:Free Speech

[Nick Ives]

Because it could make business in the EU problematic. If a foreign media organisation were to be found in contempt of court (in this case impossible as I doubt Geeknet Inc. has been served with this injunction) then the company directors could become the subject of a European Arrest Warrant.

It's the same reason that libel tourism is so popular; unless you have no intention of entering or doing business in the EU, you need to abide by the rules of our courts.

Quandary

[WizardMarnok]

How an I supposed to know what I am not allowed to say, when the very injunction which forbids me to say it prevents me from knowing what I'm not allowed to say?

Re:Quandary

[AGMW]

How an I supposed to know what I am not allowed to say ...

Exactly so Sir. I don't know who was served with super-injunctions which prevented them from saying things about some anonymous person (or persons) and also prevented them from even talking about the fact they can't talk about it, but I certainly haven't been told I can't talk about it?

Hmmmm. That Super-Injunction's not looking quite so Super now is it!

Honestly, I really couldn't give a toss about what footballers get up to off the pitch - actually, I don't really care what they do on the pitch either, but when they use their fame and fortune to try and restrict the Freedom of Speech I start to care, but not in a good way!!!

If you gain some of your value from your public persona then, IMHO, you sold your soul to the devil and if you live by the sword you die by the sword! Best bet is to try and keep your sword sheathed in the first place!

Re:Quandary

[BasilBrush]

A superinjunction is sent to named individuals or organisations. But it includes an additional clause to "Any person who knows of this order..."

Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.

If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.

Re:Quandary

[91degrees]

Super injunctions are actually fairly new, and on the whole, people don't really understand them.

To the best of my knowledge, the law says that people are entitled to their privacy. If you violate his privacy then you may well be liable for damages caused by that breach. It's up to the court to decide whether they were entitled to privacy and whether you violated it.

Unlike the US, the courts can apply prior restraint. That is, if a publication is going to breach privacy, you can get a court injunction preventing them from doing so. Violating this is contempt of court and so punishable as such. Of course this would implicitly allow a workaround where the media implicitly reveals details by revealing that the celebrity has applied for an injunction, so the injunction has language explicitly preventing that.

If you genuinely aren't aware there's an injunction then it doesn't actually apply to you and you can only be sued for damages after the fact. If you are aware (and it seems pretty certain that you are aware) then revealing this is contempt of court.

Re:Quandary

[Anonymous Coward]

How an I supposed to know what I am not allowed to say, when the very injunction which forbids me to say it prevents me from knowing what I'm not allowed to say?

Simple.

Wait to see if you get sued.

Re:Quandary

[grahammm]

Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.

If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.

In this case one of the things the court is ordering is that the identity of the person posting the tweet be revealed. So how does the court know that the tweeter was either aware of the existence of the superinjunction or, if they were aware of the existence of a superinjunction, that the person about whom they were tweeting was the subject of the injunction?

Re:Quandary

[Anonymous Coward]

The twitter account in question is called 'injunctionsuper', and has tagged the tweets with 'superinjunction'. I suspect they were aware.

As a sidenote, does posting this mean I am also going to be arrested?

Re:Quandary

[countertrolling]

Is this why Google won't reveal the name of the chamber maid? Must be a big secret, because I can't find anything on it, either her name, or anything about an injunction

Re:Quandary

[BasilBrush]

Because the tweet mentioned the two people and was tagged #superinjunction. Pretty easy really.

Re:Quandary

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you know of the superinjuction, but not of its contents? Are you bound to follow the instructions which you haven't read?

Re:Quandary

[JWSmythe]

    Because you read the article. Or at least the summary. So you and I both know that there's someone out there that plays sports, that had an affair with a smoking hottie (scroll up for the name). So clearly, you can't say "Tiger Woods".

    Wait... Who were we talking about again?

Re:Quandary

[ukemike]

Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.
If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.

I'm dizzy.

Re:Quandary

[findoutmoretoday]

Is a superinjunction sent to a company not likely to create a communication problem?  "To all of you the list of what you and I can't say has now three extra items numbered 173, 84bis and 174.  No single item on the list may be mentioned or written down"

Re:Quandary

[dr2chase]

The alleged superinjunction. I haven't seen it personally. Have you? Do you believe everything you read on the internet? This could all be an elaborate hoax, for all we really know.

Re:Quandary

[Rogerborg]

Hang on, I'm only barely aware of who Ryan Giggs is, and this is the first I've heard of this "super injunction", which I assume covers England (including Wales): I'm a Scotch. Now, how am I supposed to know that this injunction thingy even refers to Giggs - if it does - when it's so super-secret? To whom would I apply for permission to say "Ryan Giggs nobbed that slapper Imogen Whatshername".

I mean, assuming that an English injunction applied to me, which I'm fairly sure it doesn't.

Re:Quandary

[Kijori]

An interesting post, although with one or two slight innaccuracies.

Super injunctions are not new - they've existed for a long time. What's changed is that since the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees respect for "private and family life" they're easier to get now. The issuing of them is subject to constraints laid down in the Human Rights Act and by the European Courts that mean that the impact on freedom of speech must be considered before there's any thought of granting one. They are likely to be granted where the judge is convinced that the disclosure would not add to a debate of general importance and where it would have an adverse impact on people wholly innocent, such as children. I don't particularly disagree with the judge's conclusion here, which seems to be that naming a footballer with a family who's had an affair would titillate the tabloid press while harming his children, and that they shouldn't have to suffer for his wrong.

Second, there's no right to privacy in the UK. Not yet, anyway. I know that might sound odd in the light of what I just wrote, but it's true; there's no law against breach of privacy that would apply if you, for example, took photographs of someone in compromising circumstances. The legal restraint comes only when you decide to publish that information - the action will be for the tort of disclosure of confidential information (possibly more properly called disclosure of private information nowadays).

You're right about prior restraint, although it's come as a bit of a shock - it used to be the case that the courts would not apply prior restraint as long as the publisher stated that he would defend the claim if it came to court. Quite what's changed isn't really clear (I would speculate that it's the influence of the ECHR and the need for respect for privacy). Obviously there are some circumstances where prior restraint would be granted in any case in the form of an injunction or a superinjunction - the identities of persons whose lives would be in danger if it was disclosed is one notable example. But I would prefer a retreat to the prior position in which those were the exception. I hope that that is what will happen now that the Government, provoked by a raft of cases that mostly weren't about superinjunctions at all, has decided to stick its oar in.

Regarding your final paragraph, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where a person would happen to come across information that is the subject of an injunction of which they have no knowledge, but which if they divulged it would make them liable in damages. The action would again be for wrongful disclosure of private information, but if someone has come across the information on Twitter it is unlikely still to be private! As long as commenters aren't rooting through drawers and publishing what they find, as opposed to simply repeating whatever appears in their feed, I don't see how they could be exposed to any liability other than as a result of violating an injunction.
Of course if they know they are breaching the injunction they are liable in contempt of court.

Re:Quandary

[BasilBrush]

I heard about it on Have I Got News For You. So it must be true.

Re:Quandary

[BasilBrush]

Stewart Lee, is that you?

Re:Quandary

[AmiMoJo]

Well I hears that Ryan Giggs had an affair but there is no way of knowing if he is the one I'm not supposed to talk about.

Re:Quandary

[91degrees]

Thanks for the explanations and clarifications.

CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[rainmouse]

Maybe now he will sue /. as well, or is it me who will now be sued?

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[FormOfActionBanana]

You own your comment.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Anonymous Coward]

Not likely. The SPEECH Act of 2010 was designed to prevent this. Anyone who tries to sue in a US court in a way that is designed to squelch free speech can be subject to damages. Since it would be a civil rights case, the damages could be tripled if I recall correctly.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Relyx]

I just can't believe any law firm would have the time or resources to research and go after several thousand people, just because they tweeted, retweeted, linked or otherwise used a certain person's name.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Relyx]

Couple that to the fact that this list is rapidly expanding even as we type. Those Demotivator people should make a new poster for "futilty."

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt that what RIAA does ?? (When suing for torrent downloads)

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Relyx]

Reprehensible as the RIAAs actions are, they are a huge, very rich organisation with top lawyers. Here though we are talking about an individual footballer. Even he doesn't have the money to fund such a long, drawn out campaign.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Anne Thwacks]

Even he doesn't have the money to fund such a long, drawn out campaign.

But the lawyers will have eaten all his money before he finds that out.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[countertrolling]

Let's play name that maid... The Chinese firewall is still keeping her name off the Google pages... How do you like that for power?

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

If their client wants them to do something that in the lawyer's expert opinion isn't illegal and is willing to pay them to do so, why shouldn't they even if it's futile?

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[Relyx]

Just seems like a waste of money to me...

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs

[rhalstead]

This should be interesting as to sue a US person or company in this case would be a violation of the US free speech and thus civil rights. So if the UK company sues over here, wouldn't they be subject to being prosecuted for violation of US civil rights and subject to the likely hood of monetary fortiture? IOW we have two countries with diametrically opposed laws and penalties for breaking those laws. I do have to admit the present emperor and his helpers are working to rapidly remove and/or limit those rights.

'famous' soccer player

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Ryan Giggs try to sue Twitter over exposing his affair with Imogen Thompson? It doesn't make sense...

Re:'famous' soccer player

[Opportunist]

Because he's pissed that it was some page nobody looks at and not a The Sun exclusive shocking story that would at least put his name in SOME context into people's mind.

Re:'famous' soccer player

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the same reason he didn't want the media to tell the world he's allegedly a wife-beater?

Re:'famous' soccer player

[Attila Dimedici]

Why would he be worried about that? He's a professional athlete, I assume they are all wife beaters unless there is evidence to the contrary (OK, that's not true, I generally think that hockey players are not wife beaters).

Re:'famous' soccer player

[Anonymous Coward]

You just got /. sued next. Better start packing up and move the servers to Sweden.

Re:'famous' soccer player

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he wants to use the Streisand effect to publicise that he has had a relationship with such a hottie.

Re:'famous' soccer player

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the case is to get individual names. Why would Twitter comply in a freedom-of-speech issue from another country to the US? If I were Twitter I would be avoiding giving anything over as the freedom is what's attracting users.

On other news, Giggs the "family man"... I'm all for anything which is traded as a family man image should be investigated by the UK Advertising Standards Authority as it's clearly a mis-representation and shouldn't be allowed. This is clearly in the public's interest, anyone buying a Giggs sponsored product thinking he's a role model is falling for false advertising.

Super-injunctions “best publicity value&rdqu

[David Gerard]

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.

Re:Super-injunctions “best publicity value&a

[kaiidth]

It's not just the Internet. Spanish press published the identity of said soccer player weeks ago. We must eradicate the teaching of foreign languages in Britain!

Actually it is fair to say that the last decade or so of educational policy already did a pretty good job of that, but at least now we know it's a good thing.

Super Injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

Only winners here seem to be the footballers Lawyers. They must be laughing all the way to the Bank.

Re:Super Injunction

[TaoPhoenix]

"I am sorry to say I cannot give you that information. Now, stay tuned for a special Family Guy Clip."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWFW0B9EBx0

Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tag this story with Ryan and Giggs... :)

tag story with ryan_giggs

[Winckle]

See title, tag the story so no one misses it :D

Re:tag story with ryan_giggs

[FaxeTheCat]

Who is Ryan Giggs?

Re:tag story with ryan_giggs

[Winckle]

The "unnamed" soccer player in the news story. He's a veteran player for Manchester United and formerly played internationally for Wales.

Re:tag story with ryan_giggs

[Inda]

Plenty of info on Wikipedia too. I'm glad they stuck to their promise and didn't censor.

Ryan Giggs gagging order

The comments about him being skint are laughable. He plays for Man Utd - one of the richest teams in the world.

England's worst kept secret.

Congratulations, Imogen

[Anonymous Coward]

You've made your little affair noteworthy by wikipedia's standards.

Re:England

[MichaelSmith]

Nice try Prince Charles.

Can someone clarify

[funkatron]

Is Ryan Giggs suing for privacy or for libel? Basically, is he confirming the story?

Re:Can someone clarify

[Relyx]

The fact that he hasn't come out and announced the rumours as libellous confirms the story. The other week, Jemima Khan was wrongly named and she promptly put that story to bed.

I am still trying to grapple with the stupidity of his legal advice.

Re:Can someone clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

The footballer in question (I'm in the UK and I will take no part in mentioning of names), obtained a UK court injunction stopping his name from being published, under UK privacy laws. There has been no mention of libel, but under UK law you have a right to privacy from the press. Although this is only the case if you are rich and can afford such injunctions.

A famous welsh footballer who has played professionally for the same top club for 21 years, winning 12 Premier League titles and two UEFA Champions League titles could certainly afford such an injunction.

Re:Can someone clarify

[advocate_one]

no, a footballer who cannot be named has sued Twitter. It may or may not be him, but he's relying on the injunction to keep his real name off the court papers...

Re:Can someone clarify

[igb]

There are no privacy laws in the UK, which is at the heart of the dispute. Judges are making caselaw out of the Human Rights Act, and therefore the European Convention on Human Rights. The balance between article eight privacy and article ten freedom of expression is unclear, and because European caselaw isn't incorporated into UK caselaw, and anyway there isn't very much of it, this is all pretty unexplored.

What's happened now is not that his lawyers are suing Twitter as a defendant, they're trying to get a Norwich Pharmacal order against Twitter. That's an order that says "I want to sue someone, and you have information that is important to that action". It doesn't injunct Twitter, and wouldn't even if they were a UK company, it merely demands they hand over information they have. It's going to be a car-crash, because Twitter don't (and don't need to) authenticate users, IP numbers have already been found to be insufficient evidence of identity as part of the ACS:Law debacle, and as others have pointed out there's US legislation (SPEECH Act?) which makes assisting overseas censorship an offence for a California company. "CTG"'s lawyers (like we don't know who it really is) appear to think the Streisand effect is a good thing.

Re:Can someone clarify

[sincewhen]

the stupidity of his legal advice.

Why? I'm sure it's turning out to be quite lucrative for his lawyers...

Re:Can someone clarify

[funkatron]

the stupidity of his legal advice.

Why? I'm sure it's turning out to be quite lucrative for his lawyers...

Surely they can only take that path so far before he gets different lawyers.

Re:Can someone clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

no, a footballer who cannot be named has sued Twitter

Voldemort plays football? He's suing Twitter? Maybe this is the apocalypse.

Re:Can someone clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

The balance between article eight privacy and article ten freedom of expression is unclear.

I would disagree, the rules are clear, you cannot use a right guaranteed by the convention to limit another right guaranteed by the convension

  "ARTICLE 17

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction on any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention."

The judges, in this case are using article 8 of the convention to destroy the right to freedom of expression, not of the media, but of a person. Imogen Thomas is guaranteed this right. She as expressed the desire to use this right, but cannot. I don't see anything that is unclear

Re:Can someone clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually The EU Human Rights are fully integrated into UK law and UK lawyers and judges have to take full notice of EU HRs though in some of them they do have a 'margin of appreciation' which is an allowance each EU country has in order to take note of their differing religions and social situations. But basically EU HR has been upheld in UK courts many times but is not generally reported as such beecause it is seen as part of the whole of UK law.
I'm using a lot of EU HR in my own supercase against the NHS.

Re:Can someone clarify

[Anonymous Coward]

So Ryan Giggs is not his real name? Is his real name Voldemort? I am so confused.

Re:Can someone clarify

[advocate_one]

I can neither confirm or deny that the footballer who cannot be named may or may not be the person you mentioned... (this is getting a little bit surreal... almost like Sir Humphrey's comments to Geoffrey Hacker in Yes Minister...)

Re:England

[Opportunist]

Hey, what's your beef with the old lady?

As the Pistols sung, God save the Queen. She's not behind any of that shit, it's not like she has any real political power. Hell, she can't even go into the parliament!

Re:Naming

[Anonymous Coward]

you're obviously unaware that "rugby" is called "rugby football" even though it uses an egg-shaped ball and doesn't really involve all that much more kicking than american football (ie rugby for wimps) does

Not Anti Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK doesn't have any anti free speech laws. It has laws against Libel and Slander, and there are some european laws on privacy that the UK courts are inerpreting in a rather broad manner to give rise to these superinjunctions. I suspect Twitter will just tell the UK lawyers to go to a US court first, and it'll stop there.

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[Bogtha]

The UK doesn't have any anti free speech laws. It has laws against Libel and Slander

The UK does have anti-free speech laws, and libel/slander are examples of them - restriction of speech. Every country has laws like these, because every country has decided that completely unrestricted speech is unwise.

However some countries cling to the concept of free speech as a propaganda tool. Their people are so indoctrinated to believe that their country has free speech and that makes their country special that they convince themselves that any law contradicting this belief must therefore not be actually restricting speech. So you get convoluted explanations as to why laws that quite clearly restrict people from saying things aren't actually curtailing free speech.

If I am restricted from knowingly saying untrue, disparaging things about another person, then that is a restriction of my speech. There's no getting away from that. You can either think the law is bad because it curtails free speech, or you can accept the idea that restrictions on free speech is sometimes acceptable. The more common third option, "excusing" the law (most likely by redefining "speech" to exclude the unwanted speech), is not intellectually honest.

To put it another way - if it's an anti-free speech law that you have grown up with, then you are likely to be unable to recognise it as an anti-free speech law. It's just the way things are for you. If it's a new law that is being introduced, then you are more likely to recognise it as such.

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[w0ss4g3]

The UK doesn't have any anti free speech laws. It has laws against Libel and Slander

The UK does have anti-free speech laws, and libel/slander are examples of them - restriction of speech. Every country has laws like these, because every country has decided that completely unrestricted speech is unwise.

However some countries cling to the concept of free speech as a propaganda tool. Their people are so indoctrinated to believe that their country has free speech and that makes their country special that they convince themselves that any law contradicting this belief must therefore not be actually restricting speech. So you get convoluted explanations as to why laws that quite clearly restrict people from saying things aren't actually curtailing free speech.

If I am restricted from knowingly saying untrue, disparaging things about another person, then that is a restriction of my speech. There's no getting away from that. You can either think the law is bad because it curtails free speech, or you can accept the idea that restrictions on free speech is sometimes acceptable. The more common third option, "excusing" the law (most likely by redefining "speech" to exclude the unwanted speech), is not intellectually honest.

To put it another way - if it's an anti-free speech law that you have grown up with, then you are likely to be unable to recognise it as an anti-free speech law. It's just the way things are for you. If it's a new law that is being introduced, then you are more likely to recognise it as such.

I'm not so sure that laws against Libel and Slander (or inciting hatred as another example) are actually anti-free speech. They are laws which govern what people do with their free speech. You can say/publish what you wish, but there be consequences of saying/publishing it. For example, you have the right to publish lies about somebody, but they have just as much right to point out that there were lies and seek compensation as a result of their publication.

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are conflating the "right to say something" with the "right to not be held accountable for saying something."

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[Kjella]

So you get convoluted explanations as to why laws that quite clearly restrict people from saying things aren't actually curtailing free speech.

I find the argument is usually used the other way around in a most dishonest fashion, because the US and China both restrict speech in some form neither have free speech and are equal. Sure, you can use speech for threats, fraud, false testimony, insults and a bunch of other things but a lot of people mean "free speech" to be able to hold an open public or private debate on any subject without censorship or arrest by the government, a practical concept that does divide countries into those who have free speech and those who don't.

The rest, well it depends. For example I don't think you have freedom of speech to privileged information, like if you are a doctor with my medical records, attorney-client privilege, confessional privilege, police records, sealed court documents, classified documents and so on even if the speech you make would be factual and true. And I think the fruits of the poisoned tree should also be protected, just because you somehow got your hands on my medical records doesn't mean you have the right to post them everywhere - assuming you know or have reason to believe the source is confidential. And I'd still say that country has free speech.

I can read any absurdity into the most well-meaning document if you let me read it like the devil's advocate. For example the UN declaration of human rights says in article 16 that "Men and women of full age [have a right to marry]", but most other articles don't which implies they are true for all ages. So say article 23 that says "Everyone has the right to work" means children have a right to child labor. Just absurd yes? And that's what you get if you read people's posts or the first amendmend to be that kind of absolute too.

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[Draek]

It's funny yet sad how you prove the GP's point so well.

You'd do well to learn a lesson from the Free Software crowd: we readily admit the GPL does place additional restrictions on the user than an hypothetical, purely "Free" license (well, most of us but exceptions do exist), but we also state our support such restrictions for purely practical reasons.

And BTW yes, children do have a right to work, otherwise even toddlers would be played by grown adults on TV series and movies. They do, however, also have the right not to be forced to work by anyone, even their own guardians.

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[Khashishi]

You are conflating the "right to say something" with the "right to not be held accountable for saying something."

No, you are the one who is diluting the meaning of freedom of speech. If you are persecuted for saything things, then you don't have freedom of speech, even if you have the physical capability to say things. You are conflating "freedom" with "free will". By your argument, you could have the right to steal and destroy, even if such things are outlawed.

Re:Not Anti Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ryan Giggs should demand a refund after someone at Schillings, supposedly market leaders, forgot to file the papers in a Scottish court as well."

The UK has the same injunction laws but they must applied for in all jurisdictions and not rely on the judge thinking he could stop publication all over the planet. Yes, the judge did say it was a world wide injunction.

Twitter's probably reponse

[AAWood]

"How exactly could we know not to allow comments about your injunction if we don't know there is an injunction because of the injunction?"

Re:Naming

[91degrees]

True, but hardly anyone actually calls it that because it's a silly name for a game where you don't use your feet.

Re:CTB's real name is (redacted)

[mikechant]

Maybe now he will sue /. as well,

More likely as it has no UK 'presence' (AFAIK) he will want the courts to order UK ISPs to block /.
They already have the mechanism for CP use (google 'clean feed').

The 'great firewall' - coming to your country soon (including the US - see latest copyright infringement proposals).

Joss Whedon was right

[Pop69]

You can't stop the signal

Re:Joss Whedon was right

[countertrolling]

Well, there's somebody in New York who's doing just that in a seemingly unrelated story... Lots of secrecy everywhere

Fight Club Rules?

[Nidi62]

So...I guess the first rule about super injunctions is you do not talk about super injunctions?

Re:Fight Club Rules?

[symes]

I would imagine that the first rule is not to become embroiled in tawdry affairs that might embarrass you should they become public knowledge, especially if you are married.

Streisand Effect? needs renaming

[advocate_one]

this footballer has just made himself look massively stupid... so needs his name used to illustrate the futility of attempting to keep something secret in the information age...

Re:Streisand Effect? needs renaming

[damburger]

The name you are looking for is 'Ryan Giggs'

Re:Super-injunctions “best publicity value&a

[Anonymous Coward]

"We tried to bugger the Internet last year," said Peter Mandelson, "but did you listen?"

The internet's not like a big truck, you know; it's more like a series of hedgehogs.

Re:England

[xeoron]

She does have some power, considering that she has the power to de-solve parliament and bring back the monarchy, plus she is one of the largest land owners' in the world.

Re:England

[Canazza]

And all the proceeds from that land goes straight into the treasury in exchange for us providing her with a salary.

Although if she did dissolve parliament I'm more than certain she'd have a revolution on her hands fairly sharpish. It'd be the Roundheads and the Cavaliers all over again.

Presidents

[Fractal Dice]

OK, it may be begging a Streisand effect to attempt to maintain discretion by way of the law, but I'm not wild about the cavalier attitude of suggesting American companies should ignore local laws. If we want one global agreement on rules of conduct, perhaps we should actually negotiate a common set of principles instead of "what America says is the law, is the law because there's nothing you can do about it".

Re:Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Brit, I have no problems with people in the USA ignoring this law,

I would ask for the same courtesy from them when I would like to trash the DMCA though...

Re:Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm fine with suggesting companies should ignore *foreign* laws which do not govern them, since this tends toward more freedoms rather than less, rather than suggesting that companies should bend to foreign laws, which usually tend toward censorship and control, as in this case.

Also, this is funny:
Lord Judge said readers placed greater trust in the contents of traditional media than in those "who peddle lies" on websites.

Lord Judge is out of touch, I think. I'm more likely to believe that an individual on Twitter doesn't have an alternate agenda than I am to believe that a corporate-controlled news outlet doesn't have one. I mean, what are the twitterers "peddling" anyway? That implies a financial stake. Traditional media has a far greater financial stake in feeding the public a subtle (or sometimes blatant) lie than any individual does.

Re:Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, it may be begging a Streisand effect to attempt to maintain discretion by way of the law, but I'm not wild about the cavalier attitude of suggesting American companies should ignore local laws. If we want one global agreement on rules of conduct, perhaps we should actually negotiate a common set of principles instead of "what America says is the law, is the law because there's nothing you can do about it".

If you don't like the way we run our intarwebz, stay the fuck off it. We're not shoving our cat-5 down your throats. Don't want porn in your town? Don't download it. Don't want to have your name outed when you cheat on your wife and fuck a supermodel? Don't cheat on your wife and fuck a supermodel, and it's not a problem. It's so goddamn simple, I'd think even a wanker like you could figure it out.

Re:Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want Saudi Arabia or North Korea to set the standard?

Re:Presidents

[Draek]

Generalize it and it may become more palatable: local corporations should not be bound by laws of any locality other than their own. That means no British "super injuctions" in US territory, but also no "infinity minus a day" copyrights outside the US (*) and so on. Sounds nice, doesn't it? well, nicer at least than having to enforce every law cooked up by any corrupt politician or tinpot dictator anywhere else in the world.

(*) There's always the Berne convention to deal with, but that tops out at 50 years. Still pretty damn long, but better than the US' situation for either living persons or corporations.

Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[GauteL]

Just like with Digital Rights Management / Defective by Design, you see a lot of silly bullish attitude from geeks on this site: "Ever heard of the Streisand Effect? All DRM will eventually be beaten!"

This is a serious attack on people's rights. What people are forgetting is that while this Welsh footballers privacy is being protected, the big brother's star Imogen Thomas' right to publish accounts about her own private life is impeded. In this particular case, this may seem irrelevant, after all, she's just a gold digger looking to make some money selling her story, right? But what if some famous actor / sports star slept with your wife and when you wanted to expose the wanker, he slaps down a super-injunction on you. How humiliated would you feel? And what if this was actually about something that had serious public interest?

Just like with DRM, bullishly stating that "we'll always beat them" is besides the point. Just because YOU [tm] may have the means and no qualms about breaking this stupidity imposed on you by law, that doesn't mean everyone are willing to break the law and open themselves up to the legal consequences.

AND: the fact that Twitter is American is more or less meaningless. Since they operate in Britain, they have to abide by British law and may well have to give up the names of the people involved. And you know what? Chances are they live in Britain.

This is serious stuff, people's rights are under threat, and arrogance doesn't help anyone.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Phillip2]

Everything that you say is correct. This is serious and the rise of the super injunction is not a good thing; even if they are largely aimed at the tabloid press who are a bunch of bottom-feeders.

None of this, however, changes the fact that the situation is farcical and absurd. It reminds me of the stupidity of the Peter Wright spy-catcher affair, or the entirely ridiculous spectacle of an actor lip-syncing Gerry Adams for two years because he was a terrorist.

It might be serious and because of this, it's more worthy of a good laugh than most things. What could be more British than that?

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[igb]

the fact that Twitter is American is more or less meaningless. Since they operate in Britain, they have to abide by British law

Do Twitter operate in the UK? They were talking about opening an office in the UK recently but I don't think they have yet, and the legal action is against their US operation. People who access their website from the UK have to do so within the bounds of UK criminal law, and if anything do is deemed to be "publishing" they are at risk under UK libel and defamation laws, but neither of these impact the website they're accessing.

You don't need to be a UK company for your website to be accessed in the UK, and it would be clearly insane to attempt to claim that should be the case. As I haven't been served an injunction by anyone, I'm not bound by it, and to attempt to claim that passing on 28th-hand rumours lays me open to an action for contempt of court is preposterous (it would open me up to a claim of libel, but as no-one including the footballer in question is contesting the truth of the matter I don't think we need to worry about that).

I think CTG's lawyers are going to be straight out of luck. Edward VIII couldn't keep his affairs secret for long, and that was in an era when international phone calls were close to magic. Spanish newspapers are openly publishing his name in the run-up to the European Cup final, for example.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because YOU [tm] may have the means and no qualms about breaking this stupidity imposed on you by law, that doesn't mean everyone are willing to break the law and open themselves up to the legal consequences.

It's simple, really: If you are cattle that doesn't have the metaphorical balls and spine, to break a illegal law... I will break your actual balls and spine, to match that.

Got that?

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Ryan Giggs has been exposed for having sex with the former Miss Wales, I don't suppose his wife is too happy to hear it. He is trying to stop the press from publishing it. Streisand Effect usage in this story is perfectly valid. Most people won't know about it had he not tried to abuse the law to cover up his extramarital affair.

No one has mentioned DRM regarding Ryan Giggs's sex life, you are just reacting. Closet ManUre fan by any chance?

He's not the first Premier League player to be in this situation, and as he's well past his best and at the end of his careers, the others are/were bigger names. It happens every few weeks in reality. The same stories runs for the others, and like other celebrity fluff, soon fizzles out and blows away. Giggs however, has made a fuss about it and inadvertently turned it into a much bigger story precisely because he tried to hide it, generally know as the Streisand Effect, because that's exactly what she did, and had the same results.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[PeanutButterBreath]

This is a serious attack on people's rights. What people are forgetting is that while this Welsh footballers privacy is being protected, the big brother's star Imogen Thomas' right to publish accounts about her own private life is impeded. In this particular case, this may seem irrelevant, after all, she's just a gold digger looking to make some money selling her story, right? But what if some famous actor / sports star slept with your wife and when you wanted to expose the wanker, he slaps down a super-injunction on you. How humiliated would you feel?

How humiliated would I feel if someone famous slept with my wife and the internet was prevented from echoing that fact ad nauseum. Not humiliated at all, as a matter of fact. I would be grateful to be able to divorce her and get on with my life with a minimum amount of drama.

The only "right" in danger here is the "right" to profit, either financially or in the esteem of they type of people who follow celebrity gossip. Imogen Thomas is not prevented from prostituting the sad details of her own life. She is only prevented from using someone else's name to do so. If her story is not valuable w/o naming unwilling names, then perhaps she is not so interesting after all and should seek some other means of supporting herself.

And what if this was actually about something that had serious public interest?

That should be taken into account by the judge issuing the injunction. In this case, it clearly is not.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

AND: the fact that Twitter is American is more or less meaningless. Since they operate in Britain, they have to abide by British law and may well have to give up the names of the people involved. And you know what? Chances are they live in Britain.

In what way exactly do Twitter operate in Britain? The website is accessible from Britain, being on the Internet and all, obviously that no more makes them subject to British privacy law than porn sites are to Iranian indecency laws.

Or is there some specific aspect of Twitter's business actually operating in the UK?

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter has no UK presence, although people in the UK can use the service.

Even if Twitter did have a UK presence, the 2010 SPEECH act in the US prohibits the US from enforcing such judgments and injunctions.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the 2010 SPEECH Act brought in due to libel tourism which was created by British judges using UK Acts?
Britney Spears threatened to sue a magazine in Belfast, a website in the Ukraine was sued because someone who could speak Ukrainian in the UK might stumble upon the site, a book was pulped because the US publisher who was not going to distribute it anywhere else in the world but the US. Anyone with access to Private Eye's archives might like to look these up.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Go cry about it into your tea and crumpets.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[BancBoy]

Closet ManUre fan by any chance?

Mod this post -1 Arsenal Supporter. ;)

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they have offices there they don't have to follow their law. Kinda like spamhaus doesn't have to follow US law and routinely ignores it. Kinda sucks for you when the shoes on the other foot huh?

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter does not operate in Britain. Its headquarters are in San Francisco, and its servers are all in the USA. It is therefore exclusively subject to US law, which does not look kindly upon foreign censorship attempts. Twitter could choose to cooperate, and that would be terrible, but declaring that this is "THE LAAAAW" is just wrong. Nice try, though.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Rogerborg]

Even if there is a Twitter "UK", all they have to do is to relocate to Scotland. This is an English law. Scotch media only tend to respect it because most of them are owned by English entities, but there's no legal basis for enforcing it against a Scotch entity, any more than there would be against French or Mongolian publicists.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Draek]

You seem strangely idealistic for someone with such a low UID. I came here much later than you did (even accounting for my pre-account lurking time) and I still remember when outrageous laws made the people around here send emails to their representatives rather than simply snark to ourselves. Know what happened of it? absolutely fucking nothing. Oh wait, I remember one guy got a reply thanking him for sending his opinion once, but the law still passed with flying colors.

Welcome to the 21th century, where for every one of you there's at least a hundred morons happy with whatever politicians throw their way as long as they catch the latest episode of the latest Big Brother reenactment show.

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since they operate in Britain"

How so, do they trade anything in the UK? Do they have servers in the UK? There's a service which may be used from the UK, but is there anything which means that they are subject to UK law?

There could be a mechanic with a forum in Chicago that I could access from the UK. At what point would the mechanic be subject to the UK laws?

Re:Unwarranted bullish attitude by geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel that I would be remiss if I didn't point out that "we" DID beat DRM in the music stores, as people pushed for, for so long.

The fact of the matter is that by hook or by crook, such patently dubious law rarely passes, and never stays long, unless there's a lot of somebodies with money behind it, and even then, a vast electoral group is going to be able to leverage politicians more than a handful of people in a company, relatively comparing. Its why in the end, the RIAA "lost" the DRM fight, though they're certainly still trying.

Also: Twitter does no business in Britain. It does no business anywheres. It does not charge. Its revenue are from advertisers. So, all they would "have" to do is stop accepting ads from British companies. This does not stand to hurt Twitter much at all, since I would venture to go out on a limb and speculate that the majority of their ad revenue is north-american in origin. So saying that it would, is misleading.

ml

Why so timid?

[Anonymous Coward]

The footballer in question is Ryan Giggs.

Obvious solution

[mano the shark]

Any time an injunction is issued, have every social media site notify all of their members that they can't make any statements regarding the injunction. That way everyone will know not to say anything.

Re:England

[Anonymous Coward]

But if she cared about anything, I'm pretty sure she can dissolve the parliament. In sulfuric acid, I think, but as a Yankee, I'm not too familiar with the details of British governance. Hasn't mattered to us in a couple hundred years, y'know.

Re:England

[TheRaven64]

She serves two purposes. One is continuity. She has been meeting the Prime Minister every week to discuss the issues of the day for several decades. This, at least according to several former PMs, makes her a very useful advisor. This utility disappears when she dies. She should really have been including Charles in these meetings for the last 10 years, so that he does eventually take over he can do the same thing. Without that, going to be a bit useless.

Her second role is as a constitutional failsafe. No bill becomes law until she's signed it, so she can act to prevent abuses of power, refusing to sign a bill and triggering a general election. The fact that she signed RIPA, however, makes me think that she's never going to do that, no matter what she's asked to sign.

Re:Naming

[Vinegar Joe]

True, but hardly anyone actually calls it that because it's a silly name for a game where you don't use your feet.

http://www.soccerassociation.com/

Sue me bitch...

[Anonymous Coward]

RYAN GIGGS

This is not a super-injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just an injunction. Super-injunctions are when no-one's allowed to reveal that the injunction exists (eg Fred Goodwin's superinjunction, which was only revealed due to Parliamentary privilege), whereas injunctions only have part of the detail blocked (eg in this case, the name of the footballer) and people can lawfully reveal their existence.

US free speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that only applies in the specially demarcated Free Speech Zones (TM). All such speech outside of the zones will be monitored and may be used in evidence against you should you have broken a law yet to be written.

Re:Super-injunctions “best publicity value&a

[Anonymous Coward]

But Britons can go to Spain and hire a translator. We must leave the EU!

Oh wait..

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrh, this was made by my housemate on my computer. I hope I don't get done for it :(
Brings a new harsh reality to fraping if you can be liable...

Personal Security Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems the Americans are unable to relate to a super-injunction.

Just see it as a Personal Security Letter issued under the RICHSNOB act.

even if you are an american company

[SuperDre]

I'm doubtful of an American company paying much attention to UK anti-free-speech laws

If they allow UK citizens on their servers and operate in the UK (as their site www.twitter.co.uk redirects to www.twitter.com) then they have to obey the UK law..

Re:even if you are an american company

[anonymov]

They allow citizens from all over the world on their servers, and all countries has their own crazy ass laws like your 'omgprivacyofourtreasuredcelebritiesunderfire' gagging orders.

Should they get sued for disobeying whole lot of political censorship laws by all dictatorships and by some Deekwaddiland for linking to pictures with indecently exposed male nipples too?

Cry Baby

[humansky]

Is it just me or do soccer players cry on AND off the field?

Re:Cry Baby

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just you.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

'Best' tweet

[trancemission]

Ryan Giggs is suing twitter. I can't Imogen why

Re:England

[jimicus]

It's vanishingly unlikely a monarch would refuse to give royal assent. The last time it happened was 1707.

Misnomer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a super-injunction, it's censorship.

Conspiracy

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Yeah, trying to suppress the morale when the UEFA Champions League final is only 7 days away.

Who ever that post that tweet must be working for FC Barcelona.

Manchester United for LIFE!

Re:England

[creat3d]

How does she deserve a salary?

Soccer?!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

football not soccer! Cheers!

He hasn't sued Twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is being misreported. He (that mysterious "he" that, being in the UK, I'm not allowed to name) hasn't sued Twitter. What's happened is that his lawyers have filed papers with the High Court requesting that Twitter disclose information on the user(s) who have tweeted in defiance of the court injunction. Moreover, it filed the request several days ago, at that; it's just taken everyone until now to catch up - and "sued" makes much better headlines than "requested information".

Helpful

[laxguy]

I found this article immensely helpful in determining who this anonymous play may be..

http://deadspin.com/5804120/totally-anonymous-soccer-player-sues-twitter-for-saying-ryan-giggs-had-an-affair

Re:England

[Z00L00K]

There is also a correction needed. Britain doesn't use "Soccer", the right term when talking about it is "Football".

What is termed "Football" on the American side should be called "Handegg" and seems to be weaklings version of Rugby.

To those who cba looking it up...

[stealth_finger]

...Ryan Giggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs), long time Man Utd player is the one named by twitter. The footballer in question whether it is Giggs or not obviously doesn't really get it as he's also suing the News of the World for printing a misleading silhouette of him (http://www.thenewsgrind.com/news/media/super-injunction-footballer-sues-over-insulting-silhouette/)

Twitter censors trend list due to super-injunction

[Andy Smith]

Twitter now appears to be censoring its trend list, in the UK at least, to avoid drawing attention to a particular footballer who is being talked about a lot.

http://www.meejahor.com/2011/05/21/twitter-censors-trend-list-due-to-super-injunction/

Re:England

[Culture20]

She's the grand vizier for more transitory kings and queens (PMs).

Re:England

[creat3d]

PMs that have clearly demonstrated their merit...

Re:England

[Canazza]

Because she gives us all the money she makes off of land.

From the Wikipedia article:

King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists. In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have by far exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch.[98] For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period.[99] The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, worth over £6.6 billion.[100]

Me, I'm neither pro nor anti monarchy. Although it will be a contentious issue I shall have to make a side on when Scotland votes on it's independence in a couple of years.

Re:England

[MakinBacon]

There is also a correction needed. Britain doesn't use "Soccer", the right term when talking about it is "Football".

What is termed "Football" on the American side should be called "Handegg" and seems to be weaklings version of Rugby.

You can say what you want about it being a weakling's Rugby, but I still think (American) Football would be really hard to play without using your feet.

Re:England

[Anonymous Coward]

Gordon Brown had merit?

Re:England

[Tacvek]

I could imagine the monarch withholding royal assent in one special case, namely Parliament passes the law, and recesses, and prior to the the assent being issued, a major problem with the law surfaces which was not anticipated by parliament, and after consulting with the Prime Minister the monarch concludes parliament would not have passed the law if they were aware of the problem. That is rather unlikely to happen, and if It were to occur, the more likely occurrence would be an emergency session of Parliament to pass a a law correcting the issue.

Far more likely is the Monarch refusing to give Queen's Consent (or King's Consent, as applicable) to laws impacting the Monarchy itself. That is considered to be a distinct power and is exercised more frequently than refusing royal assent, although still not very often.

Re:England

[drsquare]

So, the Queen deserves a salary for giving back some of the money from the rent she extracts from us in the first place?

What does the Queen actually contribute to the Crown Estate, that benefits us over the monarchy not existing and the Crown Estate assets belonging to the people, as they did before they were stolen by the aristocracy?

He was being blackmailed...

[Anonymous Coward]

If any of you guys get off your free speech high horses for a moment and spend a few minutes looking at the background of the case, you might change your collective tune a bit.

In making his ruling on the injunction the judge said the evidence "appeared strongly to suggest that the claimant [the anonymous footballer] was being blackmailed." It appears that when he broke off the affair, the girl demanded fifty grand or she'd go to the papers. When he agreed he might make a payment, she allegedly got greedy and doubled the demand to a hundred thousand pounds. He took out the injunction not suppress her rights of free speech, but to stop her blackmailing him. Her response to this was to hire the country's top publicist to wring every penny she could out of the situation and basically destroy his life and those of his family.

It's his own stupid fault for having an affair with a publicity seeking reality TV "star." But let's not get too confused about who's the victim here.

Re:England

[Anonymous Coward]

This thought that american football is not tough as rugby is hogwash. Because of protective gear - players hit each other much much harder - in fact one of the ideas floating around to reduce injuries is to lessen protective gear.

Oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mathias: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying Ryan Giggs.

Crowd: [Shocked] He said it again!

Elder: You're only making it worse for yourself.

Mathias: Making it worse? How could it be worse? Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs.

Crowd: Ooooooh!

Elder: I'm warning you... If you say Ryan Giggs once more...
        [A stone flys by and hits the elder.]

        Right. Who threw that? Come on. Who threw that?

Crowd: She did she did, he, him, him, him, him, him, him.

Elder : Was it you?

Woman2: Yes.

Elder: Right...

Woman2: Well you did say Ryan Giggs.
        [She gets stoned {the blasphemer}]

Elder: Stop, stop. Will you stop that... stop it. Now look. No-one is to
        stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Do you understand? Even, and
        I want to make this absolutely clear; even if they do say Ryan Giggs.

--------[The skocked women stone the elder to death, ending in the dropping
          of a huge bolder on his fallen body.]

Woman3: Good shot.

--------[One of the two roman guards looks at the other, who shakes his head.
          They do nothing.]

Re:CTB's real name is (redacted)

[cavreader]

When has the US government expressed an interest in implementing a "great firewall"? The US government and ICANN has been remarkably competent ,fair, and conscientious when it comes to the management of the root DSN servers. Any politician or political party even suggesting anything like this would be eaten alive. The real threat of Internet censorship is the UN. They have been agitating for years to replace ICANN.

"Football"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called football.

Naked Emperor

[sjames]

Twitter and other social networks were accused of making "an ass of the law" by culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and politicians after a number of celebrities with injunctions were allegedly exposed online.

Why? The judges seem to be doing a fine job of that all by themselves. Twitter didn't strip the Emperor and push him into the crowd, it just pointed and laughed.

Re:CTB's real name is (redacted)

[Rennt]

So I take it you are not familiar with the 'PROTECT IP' act that your parent was referring too?

A US Great Firewall is a very real possibility. Start being concerned.

Here are the names. US poster, behind 7 proxies

[DLiver420]

UK courts issued injunctions to prevent the press from revealing damaging evidence about famous people. Namely: Alan Shearer (caught having affair with Gabby Logan), Ewan McGregor (caught with a prostitute), and Ryan Giggs (caught having affair with Imogen Thomas). I posted this because the UK judge who issued the Giggs injunction called it an "injunction against the world". Meaning that, due to his feeble understanding of international law, he believes that somehow he has authority over my actions. He also, apparently, thinks that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for revealing this information. So, this entire post is just my way of saying, "Hey, go fuck yourself" to that judge. One judge cannot, despite his best efforts, censor the internet. The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Censoring the press is a scary proposition, even when it's done for all the right reasons. (ie. protection of a witness, to ensure a fair trial, or to protect national security). But to issue a "gag order" against the press to protect the wealthy and famous from embarrassment is a very small step away from corruption. If the judges will issue an injunction for these matters, how long will it be before the politicians start using the courts to suppress their opposition?

Re:CTB's real name is (redacted)

[cavreader]

Protect IP, like the existing Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a proposed enforcement tool supposedly developed to protect IP , Trademarks, and Copyrights. These measures are not "firewalls", If you go around re-defining terms when rendering your opinions you weaken your argument. Firewalls are preemptive measures to protect network integrity. The IP ACT rules and regulations do not inhibit any information until after you have violated the laws spelled out in the law. I personally believe that this is not a matter the government needs to get involved with because determining what is valid IP and what is not goes right over the heads of our incompetent legislative bodies. Expecting them to understand this issue would take them longer than most of their terms in power. That being said I do believe there is legitimate IP and Copyrights that should be protected up until the IP and Copyrights expire. Those who spend the time and money to create something new deserve to compensated for their efforts. The number of people crusading against all patents and copyrights seem to think you can just make everything public the moment it is released. How many big Hollywood movies would get made if you took the potential profits out of the equation? How many books or songs would get published without the potential of profits to at least re-coup their development costs. Abolishing the IP and copyright protections would lead to such a situation over time. If you walk into a bookstore and steal a book it is against the law. Why is it not applicable to put similar restrictions for online content? I do believe the current patent situation is out of whack. The shear number of baseless patents granted shows that the people approving these types of patents are clueless about what the hell is being patented.The first change I would lobby for is a rule that states the patent holder needs to have actually built or used the patents in the commercial world thus getting around all the firms who do nothing but buy up patents to use in collecting royalties or court judgments and rewards.

Re:England

[hr raattgift]

The Royal Assent with respect to Westminster bills has generally been delegated to a commission since the 16th century (this was largely motivated by efficiency issues surrounding Henry VIII becoming the constitutional monarch of Ireland and by Henry VIII being more interested in sports and architecture, and with the fractiousness of English politics which was merely hidden for a while during his father's reign). The monarch personally participated in Royal Assent ceremonies only infrequently for major bills; the last time a monarch was personally involved in a Royal Assent was in 1854.

No bill becomes law until she's signed it

is therefore at least inaccurate.

It is not clear whether the Prime Minister can Advise the Lords Commissioners to withhold the Royal Assent in the United Kingdom. It is an enumerated power of the Executive in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, however, and has been used once or twice, although proclamation and/or bringing-into-force clauses in the Constitution and covering statute are the usual tools the Executive uses to avoid implementing the entirety of Acts of Parliament until it sees fit. In Westminster, Parliament regularly delegates the decision to bring into force parts of Acts of Parliament to government ministers, directly in the Act itself.

Also, the United Kingdom is now effectively a federal state, and one of the ways this `is reflected is in how the Royal Assent works with respect to bills originating in the assemblies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The monarch has no personal authority in the enacting of bills passed by those bodies; the remedy for apparent conflicts with the Constitution is through the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and the power to refer bills to the Supreme Court is vested in politicians responsible to the respective assemblies.

Bills passed by the National Assembly for Wales are confirmed by an Order-in-Council (in which the Queen or a Regent participates), however this will change to a system more like that of Scotland in light of the 2011 referendum on the extension of the Assembly's legislative competence.

Since Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales effectively allow their respective governments-of-the-day to stall the implementation of Assembly bills on narrow grounds, it is likely that the government in Westminster could do the same if it wanted (for instance, if a minority government were to be unable to stop the passage of a bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords (where necessary)).

She should really have been including Charles in these meetings for the last 10 years

He has been a Privy Counsellor since 1977, and since his age of majority has acted as Prince Regent when the Queen has been unavailable. He is almost certainly as well briefed as he would like to be. Any differences in the advisory role between President Windsor and Vice-President Windsor is most likely attributable to personality and personal interests.

Re:England

[hr raattgift]

Drat, that was clearly for the GP article.

Re:England

[Anonymous Coward]

Far more likely is the Monarch refusing to give Queen's Consent (or King's Consent, as applicable) to laws impacting the Monarchy itself. That is considered to be a distinct power

That power was obliterated by The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Coronation Oath Act of the same year; accepting those was part of the price for William and Mary and their supporters.

Re:England

[Coren22]

As the term football was in the past used for any sport that was played on foot, it has very little to do with the ball or how it is handled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(word)#Etymology

Re:England

[cbiltcliffe]

You can say what you want about it being a weakling's Rugby, but I still think (American) Football would be really hard to play without using your feet.

By that logic, baseball, tennis, cricket, and even golf should all be renamed to football, and badminton should probably be renamed to footcock.

Re:England

[Tacvek]

The rufusal of Queen's Consent for laws impacting the monarchy itself is a power that still exists, and has been used as recently as 1999. Look up the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which would have granted Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. That power is currently held by the Monarch. Queen Elizabeth II refused to consent to the bill, so the bill could not move forward.

It basically prevents parliament from wasting time debating a bill that would later be refused Royal Assent, on the grounds of the bill modifying the balance of power between the Monarch and Parliament. Of course, if the monarch grants King Consent or Queen's Consent for the bill, then it could continue, and would like any other bill be almost certain to be granted Royal Assent upon passage.

That is very distinct from the Powers the monarch lost in the Glorious Revolution.