Tweeter To Be Prosecuted, Twitter Now Censoring?

Andy Smith writes "Slashdot has already covered the super-injunctions furore in the UK, with one famous footballer going after an anonymous Twitter user who broke a court order and revealed his extra-marital affair. Now another footballer has asked the attorney general to prosecute a well-known journalist and TV personality, who went against another super-injunction and wrote about this footballer, again on Twitter. Meanwhile, going back to the first footballer, it looks like he's got Twitter running scared, as the site is apparently blocking his name from appearing on the trend list, despite him being one of the most tweeted-about people."

Comments

whats this all about then?

[Anonymous Coward]

why would ryan giggs do such a thing?

Imogen Thomas

[Threni]

Just heard former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas has got a secret singing career.
Apparently she's been doing gigs in Manchester for ages.

Where is this going to end

[Ziekheid]

Are you telling me that cheap gossip like extra-marital affairs of pro footballers will have to be leaked through wikileaks in the future?

Re:Where is this going to end

[iamhassi]

"Are you telling me that cheap gossip like extra-marital affairs of pro footballers will have to be leaked through wikileaks in the future?"

I'm less concerned about cheating football players and more concerned with overthrowing corrupt governments. Can a corrupt judge in a corrupt government simply say "don't talk about revolution" and Twitter will simply roll over and play dead? How would the Egyptian and Tunisia revolutions gone without the communication that Twitter provided?

Looks like we need a replacement for twitter.

Re:Where is this going to end

[hedwards]

To be honest, that was never any business of the public at large. It's just that in the UK they can go to the courts and get an injunction. Whereas in the US there's little to nothing that can be done to keep the press out of the private lives of celebrities. To an extent that's natural, but if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.

Re:Where is this going to end

[John Hasler]

> ...if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.

If it didn't happen in public the public would not know about it.

Re:Where is this going to end

[wealthychef]

>> ...if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.
> If it didn't happen in public the public would not know about it. When you are a celebrity the lines between public and private shift. She might have been visiting him at home, and yet it could become public knowledge from a gossipy neighbor. Regardless, the press should be free to report it. It's not like celebrities don't get compensated for their loss of privacy.

Re:Where is this going to end

[clang_jangle]

I think the point is that fame is a "build 'em up, tear 'em down" game -- that's part of the entertainment as far as most "consumers" are concerned. All famous people know this, yet they often try to resist that inevitable equal yet opposite reaction... Don't we all just want to have our cake and eat it, too? :)

Re:Where is this going to end

[jonbryce]

The European Convention on Human Rights has the right to privacy at No. 8, and the right to freedom of speech at No. 10.

Human rights are not an absolute thing, one right contradicts another, and you have to find a balance. He we have decided that the right to privacy and the right to protect your reputation against untrue statements is more important that the right to free speech.

Re:Where is this going to end

[IICV]

Human rights are not an absolute thing, one right contradicts another, and you have to find a balance. He we have decided that the right to privacy and the right to protect your reputation against untrue statements is more important that the right to free speech.

Apparently, you've also decided that the right to protect your reputation against true statements is more important than the right to free speech - IIRC, in England truth is not an absolute defense against accusations of libel or slander.

Re:Where is this going to end

[jonbryce]

It is, but the burden of proof is on the person making the statement to prove that it is true.

Re:Where is this going to end

[Ash Vince]

But they are public figures. If they don't like it, they can go crawl back up into the womb...

Which is exactly where Ryan Giggs children would have to go to escape this current furore.

People like Imogen Thomas crave being in the public eye above all else, so will do anything she can to stay there. Who the hell else would actually apply to be a big brother contestant?

But if I sleep with her does it suddenly make it fair game for the gutter press to camp out on my lawn and harass me? Maybe it would make a great story to show me looking fat and ugly and use that as an example of how far she had fallen, but that is kind of harsh on me no? I never asked to be in the public eye.

This is a fictitious example (except about me being fat and ugly anyway) but it does show how many people end up in the public eye without actually wanting to be there. Slashdot is usually full of people saying everyone has a right to privacy from google, do we not have a right to privacy from the gutter press just because they took an interest in us too? Not everyone who is in the public eye ends up there by choice.

I can think of several business men who have done nothing wrong but ended up as public figures simply by being successful. Do we have the right to read about their latest love interest just to satisfy our curiosity? Does the press have the right to pursue that love interest clamouring for a photo they know the person in question does not want taken any more than google have a right to photograph the front of peoples houses?

Re:Where is this going to end

[russotto]

Also, a legal trick here in the US might help out over there. If you address an officer of the court (a cop), telling him that he's an asshole, he can file charges against you. However, if you use the prefix, "In my opinion, you're being an asshole!" he can't do anything. It's a matter of stating an opinion, versus phrasing the same thing as a fact.

This is nonsense. In the US, calling a cop an asshole is protected speech regardless of whether you preface it with "in my opinion". However, the result either way is likely to be a beatdown, followed by charges of disorderly conduct and (if the cop is feeling especially grouchy) assault on a police officer (for any defense, including protecting yourself or merely obeying the Fermi exclusion principle, you may have put up during the beatdown).

Re:Where is this going to end

[SvnLyrBrto]

Hah... I'd agree if you'd mentioned F1 or rallying or touring. But nascar? When all they do is drive in a circle and turn left; the only things to look forward to, IMO, are the crashes and the commercials and changing the channel to just about anything else.

Not the first time they've blocked something from

[teh31337one]

trending.

They stopped wikileaks from trending a while back too

Re:Slashdot is not UK based

[Artifex]

You're right, Slashdot is not UK-based. It's also Slashdot. Which means most of us probably don't follow sports celebrities. :)

Now that you've got me actually reading the linked blog, I see Andy Smith gives a "Round of applause for today’s Sunday Herald for identifying the footballer who is trying to sue a Twitter user for identifying him, in violation of a court order." But does he dare say the name, himself?

Ryan Giggs is STILL trending

[Anonymous Coward]

The algorithm that twitter use favours novelty tweets over mass tweets. For my location Ryan Giggs is still trending whilst it has stopped elsewhere. There was an explanation of this after people accused twitter of censoring cablegate and wikileaks.

So: TD;DR Twitter are NOT censoring Giggs, its just their algorithm doing what it does.

A suggestion

[dwillden]

For those overpaid athletes: Don't want people tweeting about your affairs? Don't step out on your spouse. It's plain and simple. If they insist on being able to cheat on their wives then they should retire and leave the limelight so nobody will care.

Their fame naturally reduces their ability to live a private life. But they don't have to live that life, they could get a regular job and disappear into the crowd.

Re:A suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

No one cares he's shitting on his wife and family. People are talking about this because he's abusing the law to hush it up. Had he ignored it, he'd only have to deal with his wife's divorce firm, and no one would be remotely interested in yet another Premier League player getting caught sleeping around.

Re:A suggestion

[DaveGod]

The flaw in your point is it's not proven he has been cheating and tabloid stories are nothing short of propaganda, it's a character assassination and the media is the weapon of choice.

In the UK, how it works is that the story is the story. Whether he has actually been cheating, eaten someone's hamster or whatever is barely relevant. It's a battle of PR clout.

These stories have very common themes: the male is some kind of famous, the girl is some desperate wannabe famous and is represented by Max Clifford. If the male is at the peak of his celebrity, it's a fair bet that he did not pay his protection money, er I mean is not employing Max Clifford and a PR firm is trying to snag him with a grappling hook in order to drag up their "victim" into the spotlight for fame and/or interview fees.

On the other hand, if the male is in danger of dropping off the radar, it's a fair bet that both he and the "victim" are employed by the same publicist and the whole thing is a ruse to get back into the spotlight. Like when "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" (see that wiki link).

(There are of course stories about females but the story is more varied.)

It's all very well to throw up the "free speech" banners, but I'm not convinced it applies when your speech is all about attacking another person for cheap personal gain and the media operates no journalistic controls at all.

Re:A suggestion

[Xest]

I think part the problem in this case is you have two issues being muddled together.

The first is of the right to privacy vs. the right of a free press.

The second is the right of a free press vs. false accusations by that press.

I think many people would agree with the free press idea in the former issue, but in the latter case the problem with have is a press making shit up and destroying people's lives just to sell papers.

In the Max Mossley case in the UK the Daily Mail printed a story about the F1 boss being involved in orgies with prostitutes. That's arguably fair game, but what is not is the fact they also claimed it was a Nazi themed orgy, yet this is something they had completely and utterly fabricated to sell more papers.

Injunctions are being granted to protect privacy, IMO a partial solution at least is to not get rid of injunctions, but to limit their use to cases where a paper cannot prove to a judge that their story is factual. If the paper can prove their story is factual even if it breaches privacy, then an injunction should not be granted.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based

[madprof]

The journalist is Giles Coren and the footballer is Gareth Barry. So I read on a website.
http://www.information-britain.co.uk/tweeters/user/47583067/

Re:Slashdot is not UK based

[Sparkyjay23]

Ok so it's Ryan giggs, we've got that. But who's the journalist? I figured it'd be Ian Hisslop but I'm not sure.

Giles Coren for tweeting about TSE - (Gareth Barry), another Player whose taking out an injunction preventing folk talking about an affair he had.

Barbara Streisand effect all over again

[Flipao]

This gag order thing is going to make Ryan Giggs look far worse than whatever it is he's been doing without his wife's knowledge.

Re:Trending Topics

[MrHanky]

AFAIK, it's not active censorship (i.e. silencing certain content), but rather the way the trending topics algorithm works, in that it will ditch topics after a sharp spike, to limit itself to 'breaking news'. You still find loads of tweets if you search for Ryan Giggs.

Re:Neither is Twitter

[clang_jangle]

Bingo! How does a court injunction against a reporter have any bearing on anyone else? And how can such an injunction be enforced if the target discloses the "illegal information" (**sneer**) pseudonymously? The judge is obviously drunk on his own power if he imagines he can prevent gossip.

Under Control???

[IonOtter]

FTA: However, he (Lord Neuberger) warned that modern technology was "totally out of control" and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.

Personally, I think Lord Neuberger and those like him are the ones that need to be brought under control.

Re:Under Control???

[pjt33]

Actually it's not a bunch of Brits: it's one single judge. What I recall from what I've seen of the Prime Minister's comments on the situation seem to indicate that he views it as legislating from the bench and that work is under way to get some proper, sane, legislation through Parliament.

Re:Under Control???

[Grumbleduke]

FTA: However, he (Lord Neuberger) warned that modern technology was "totally out of control" and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.

Firstly, he didn't say that. So, it's already pretty clear that you haven't looked at the context. Lord Judge (the Lord Chief Justice) did say those words, but in the following context:

...everybody knows about defamation; some people even know about the Press Complaints Commission; and some people even know that most newspaper editors do not like to go foul of the Press Complaints Commission, notwithstanding some of the articles to the contrary. But they know about defamation; everybody knows that if you get it wrong, the damages will be very substantial. They also know that modern technology is totally out of control. Anybody can put anything on it. I suspect that they
would pay much more attention to an article in a newspaper or on the media than they would to anything that anybody can put out on modern technology. I think there is a significant difference.

Basically, what he's saying is that modern technology is out of the control of the law (which, if anything, this mess over injunctions - they're not super-injunctions - has demonstrated). But he's saying that it doesn't really matter! This was at the end of a speech where he was talking about how it was necessary to start using technology "to prevent the misuse of modern technology". It is currently beyond the law, and he - as the head of the English judiciary - wants to bring it into the scope of the law, strangely enough. This may not be desirable from our points of view, but I don't think we can criticise him for wanting this.

Of course, it isn't really your fault for taking the line out of context - the UK tabloids have been doing everything they can to discredit our judges for some time (especially when it comes to privacy). They mostly focussed on that one line, ignoring the 100+ page report (which is an interesting read) that basically said all this fuss over "super-" and "hyper-injunctions" was stopped over a year ago and the press are just making stuff up. [They managed to find 3 privacy super-injunctions granted since January 2010; two lasted for a few days, the third was removed on appeal - hyper-injunctions never really existed in the first place.] For some reason, the press don't want to report this, maybe because they keep losing privacy cases due to hacking into people's telephones, using spy-cameras, and publishing any dirty celebrity story they can get their hands on. No, of course they're being impartial in their reporting.

Maybe it's silly and naive of me to think this possible, but it would be nice if people would actually look at the facts on this issue.

[And yes, I've spent most of the last week split between researching this stuff and trying to knock some sense and facts into people discussing this.]

Ryan Giggs ?

[Pop69]

If it is him I can say it all I like, I'm in Scotland and the order doesn't apply here.

Re:Not the first time they've blocked something fr

[neuro88]

Nope. It's because of how the twitter trending algorithm works. They don't allow the same topics to continually trend, otherwise Justin Bieber would be almost all the top trends all the time. This was explained to me by my pro-wikileaks friend even before the wikileaks fiasco occurred and who also happens to work for twitter. He also re-explained this to me during the whole wikileaks mess. This is also the explanation twitter gave.

Everyone, can we please move on from this conspiracy theory?

Re:Slashdot is not UK based

[theshowmecanuck]

for identifying the footballer who is trying to sue a Twitter user for identifying him, in violation of a court order.

What is the public benefit to prohibiting publication of some guy messing around? If someone finds out about something someone is doing, why would it be made illegal to talk about if it is true? Isn't this a violation of free speech? Oh, I forgot, this is in England, the most heavily 'big brothered' country outside of a communist block. No wonder an Englishman could envision 1984. Keep working at it. Soon you will indeed have the ministry of truth.

Re: don't do it, then, blockhead.

[furbearntrout]

There is a problem with that plan. People can post false information, lies, innuendo, rumor; as easily as the truth. The rumor mill does no fact checking.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based

[xaxa]

If someone finds out about something someone is doing, why would it be made illegal to talk about if it is true? Isn't this a violation of free speech?

No, actually. Free speech protects political speech. There are non-political restrictions on speech in the US, too.

Another important right is the right to respect for private and family life .

I don't care about the celebrities, and I can see it's not simply a black/white question balancing free speech and privacy.

However, there have been "super injunctions" applied to Trafigura, a oil/energy/metal company, which has no right to privacy (or any other rights, it's a company). The media's obsession with celebrities is hiding the real issue here.