Twitter Reveals User Details In UK Libel Case

whoever57 writes "In a case that could have implications for the Ryan Giggs affair, Twitter revealed user details in response to a legal action filed in San Mateo county, CA by lawyers representing South Tyneside council. The alleged libel refers to critical comments made via Twitter. It is possible that one of the people making the critical comments is one of the council members."

Comments

also, details

[Hazel Bergeron]

The footballer thing is about being silenced against telling the truth.

The Tyneside council thing is about being identified for libel proceedings.

Lots of people in the US have had the latter happen to them. But the former does not and still does not apply in the US. The only "implications" are that in both cases the complainant is from the UK.

Also, this is one of the most boring distractions from real problems the media has been stirred up into obsessing itself with. Cameron's a smart fucker.

California company obeys California court order

[ThreeGigs]

Twitter is in California, and a California court ordered them to reveal information. Twitter is complying with the law.

Try making it more relevant:
Brits using American court system to sue Americans.

Still News at 11 for me.

Re:California company obeys California court order

[digitig]

The UK does not have free speech.

Yes it does, via article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, which is (indirectly) binding on all members of the UN. Of course, there are specific pieces of legislation that are problematic in the light of that right. The UK is not unique in having legislation that is -- er-- problematic in terms of its constitution [*cough* Patriot Act *cough*] is it?

Re:Freedom Of Speech, eh?

[Trepidity]

Same as in the UK, which is part of the problem in this case; truth isn't an absolute defense under English libel law. However, in this particular suit in California court, they would have to follow California libel standards. A problem is that they may be able to siphon off evidence this way: sue in U.S. court, lose, but get some evidence through discovery, then introduce that evidence in UK court. A US court would not generally agree to do discovery for a UK libel suit, but it's not clear they would try to stop discovery for a US libel suit being used in a UK libel suit.

Re:Nice try but wrong; UK does not have free speec

[digitig]

How about Article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights, which trumps UK law, and the government in question (the EU) does enforce it (via the European Court of Human Rights). Sorry, but this whole "The UK doesn't have freedom of speech" is just a US myth, like the myth that we don't have a constitution -- we do, and it's legally enforceable. It can be difficult and expensive to pursue a case, but I don't think the UK is alone in that.