Twitter Prepared To Name Users

whoever57 writes "Ryan Gibbs, a UK footballer (soccer player) had obtained a 'superinjunction' that prevented him being named as the person involved in an affair with a minor celebrity. However, he was named by various users on Twitter. Now, in response to legal action initiated by Mr. Giggs in the UK courts against the users, Twitter has stated that it is prepared to identify the users who broke the injunction if it was 'legally required' to do so. Twitter will attempt to notify the users first in order to give them an opportunity to exercise their rights."

Comments

wrong name

[Mr Reaney]

Ryan Giggs

Does that count as breaking the injunction? :)

Re:wrong name

[PhilHibbs]

Only if you were aware of the details of the superinjunction, I would assume. If I find out that X is having an affair with Y, but am unaware that X has taken out a superinjunction, surely I am not breaking the law by saying so. The papers and news broadcasters are still not allowed, due to the injunction, to say "Ryan Giggs had an affair with Imogen Thomas", but they can now say "Ryan Giggs has been named as the footballer who took out a superinjunction over allegations of an affair with Imogen Thomas". This is because they know that it was Ryan Giggs, and they know that the superinjunction applies to them. I don't know for a fact that it was Ryan Giggs, I have never been ordered not to say it, because the superinjunction was supposed to prevent me from even knowing in the first place, so telling me not to say it would break the superinjunction. Phew. Did any of that make any sense, semantically or legally?

Re:wrong name

[Neil Boekend]

To be able to comply with the injunctions one should know about them.
If they want the whole country to comply they should tell everyone.
Assuming the injunction is against telling people that "Mr Giggs is fucking a minor celebrity" they would have to tell everyone.
This has made the injunction useless, because now they have told everyone themselves.
It's more of an advanced public secret.

Re:wrong name

[BasilBrush]

Quoting a parliamentarian puts you in the clear under English case law. Quoting anything or anybody else does not.

Re:wrong name

[Anonymous Coward]

my understanding is that English law doesn't require you to be aware of the injunction, it is made "against the world" which means it applies to all parties in England and Wales. Scotland has a wholly independent legal system, or at least should do (see the 1707 act of union - the UK supreme court muddies this someone, and in my opinion is unlawful as it breaches the aforementioned act - but the supreme court ISN'T the highest court in Scotland in civil matters, that is still the court of session). Under Scots law a party must be served with an interdict (our version of injunctions) in order for them to apply to that party so it would be near imposable to impose a "contra mundum" on Scottish parties.

After the Pan-Am debacle I thought that some American's might have learned a little more about scots law - particularly on the topic of its separation from the English system. AFSAIK were are the only legal system that has three judgements possible in a criminal case guilty, not guilty and "not proven" - we also have 15 on a jury, not 12 as in most other countries.

We, and I dare say, our Welsh counterparts, feel a little bit of us die inside every time we see UK in a headline of a story that really only applies to England - we have our own devolved governments and in Scotland we even have out own legal system. Wales was conquered so their legal system was subverted for the English one. Scotland was bought (google the darien scheme for a bit of back ground) in the words of our national poet - We were bought and sold for English Gold. One of the conditions of this sale was that we kept our own legal system.

Re:wrong name

[muckracer]

> In Scotland we are not covered by stupid English laws...

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!

This is dumb

[Squiddie]

This is retarded on a single point. How can they break the injunction if it wasn't directly filed against them. It's not as if all Twitter users work there.

Re:This is dumb

[Inda]

This is the argument I've been using against the BBC when they've been removing my posts.

How am I, Joe Public, supposed to know this super-injuction even exists?

Unless I'm told that mentioning Ryan Giggs is off-limits, how am I to know? I'm not a news organisation, I'm not a journalist, I don't work in the courts, I can't even attend the hearing.

My name is Joe Public and I broke the super-injuction. Lock me up for two years... if you can catch me copper!

Re:This is dumb

[SimonTheSoundMan]

A super-injunction is aimed at everybody. Only peers and MPs can brake the injunction by use of Parliamentary Privileges. A hyper-injuction tries to over-rule these privileges though. Hyper-injunction has only been used a couple of times as far as we know. Example 'Hyper-injunction' stops you talking to MP, other example would be Trafigura.

From TFS,

Twitter will attempt to notify the users first in order to give them an opportunity to exercise their rights.

You have no rights under a super-injuction. Even the defending party, example a news paper, isn't even allowed in the courtroom when the injunction is made. That's how repressive these injunctions are.

Re:This is dumb

[Xest]

I wouldn't worry too much aboutt he BBC removing your posts, I've had them do the same when my posts have been mature, factual, and perfectly legal. The BBC moderators are highly politicised and moderate entirely based upon their personal opinion about a subject rather than following the guidelines laid out on the BBC's site.

It's probably the BBC's most atrociously biased department, and I personally tend to think the BBC does a good job of being objective for the most part. When the web cuts came swinging it'd have been better if they cut right through that department frankly as I'd rather the BBC has no discussion section than a discussion section moderated by highly biased individuals repeatedly imposing their own world view on discussions.

That's not to comment about your rights regarding naming those who have taken out super injunctions of course, just as I say, try not to let BBC moderation bother you- it's pathetic.

Re:This is dumb

[L4t3r4lu5]

Apologies for replying to myself, but I should point out two things. Firstly, I hate football. It's corrupt, boring, and too political. Secondly, he's called Ryan Gibbs only once, implying it's a typing error. Samzenpus, do your fucking job as an editor and EDIT THE GOD DAMN SUBMISSIONS.

Re:Maybe the Twits should apply for a super-injunc

[ledow]

P.S. Next time keep it in your pants, and you won't have a problem, Ryan.

Re:Background

[Zugok]

Actually, no in EU, privacy and freedom of speech are prima facie equal. Then the circumstances are considered in the balancing exercise. See von Hannover v Germany

Re:Maybe the Twits should apply for a super-injunc

[c]

I agree but what I'd add is that Twitter should be absolutely lambasted
for agreeing to hand over the names as that's what really stinks in this scenario.

The qualifier is "... if legally required". Hate to break it to you, but there's darn near no corporation on the planet which will outright refuse to do something if they're clearly legally required, especially if compliance is cheap. The ones with balls will refuse to do things they're not legally obligated to do, and a few will even refuse to do things which fall into legal grey areas, but otherwise they'll do it. I this case, Twitter hasn't actually done anything except, maybe, compile that list just to ensure they know they could do it if they were asked properly.

Now, that being said, it stands to reason that Twitter will probably ignore any legal requests from inapplicable jurisdictions. This may or may not include the UK. They may also contest requests where they think they might have a strong legal backing (i.e. privacy laws).

A Quick Guide To British Soccer Players By A Brit

[pandrijeczko]

1. The top soccer players earn an absolute fortune so can buy themselves any legal representation they want whenever they want to.

2. Soccer fans are too caught up in their gang mentalities to realise that they are being ripped off by everyone around them - they pay huge premiums for annual season tickets but it's the Sky Sports channel that dictates when the games start (which can be a different time each week) so it fits in with their live programming schedules.

3. Those same fans also pay a premium for Sky Sports in order to watch the games.

4. Soccer players do not believe the laws that apply to the rest of UK citizens apply to them. Many are ill-behaved thugs both on and off the football field, and the poor example they set to youngsters has now filtered down to amateur leagues and schools where complaints about abuse against soccer referees is now common over here.

5. Because of the bad reputation set by a minority of troublemaking fans, you cannot, even with a highly priced season ticket, drink any alcohol while watching a live game.

There's a well known saying over here:

"Soccer is a gentleman's game played by thugs, whilst rugby is a thug's game played by gentlemen."

And that's why I personally follow rugby and despise soccer - it's a better game, I can have a beer while I'm watching it, I can even have a friendly beer or two with opposing fans in the pub afterwards (rather than in soccer where lines of policemen separate fans entering and leaving the stadium) and it's more entertainment for much less money.

Plus it's incredibly rare for a rugby player to make the headlines for bad behaviour or shagging some other woman.