Slashdot Mirror
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"
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.
I'm fairly certain that 'allegedly' is unnecessary in this case. i.e it's Ryan Giggs, definitely. :p
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
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?
Maybe now he will sue /. as well, or is it me who will now be sued?
Why would Ryan Giggs try to sue Twitter over exposing his affair with Imogen Thompson? It doesn't make sense...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
See title, tag the story so no one misses it :D
Nice try Prince Charles.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Is Ryan Giggs suing for privacy or for libel? Basically, is he confirming the story?
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Nothing to do with infections. It's cockney rhyming slang.
septics == septic tanks == yanks
Australians often say 'seppos' too, stands for 'septic (tanks)'.
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?)...
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?
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.
Nick
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.
Nick
septic = septic tank = yank = americans.
Obvious for whom?
obvious for whom = temple of doom = Indiana Jones
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
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.
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).
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.
www.wavefront-av.com
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.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
So...I guess the first rule about super injunctions is you do not talk about super injunctions?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The name you are looking for is 'Ryan Giggs'
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
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.
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
In the case of rhyming yank with septic tank, I doubt the derogatory nature was an accident.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
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 ...
Amen to what you just said. Each to his own, but I've never found fake breasts to be attractive.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
It's vanishingly unlikely a monarch would refuse to give royal assent. The last time it happened was 1707.