Slashdot Mirror
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."
Oh *whine* he said mean things about me!!!!!
*piddles*
Mister judgie please beat them up for me!
*whine*
Could Slashdot editors stop mentioning the name of supposed UK super-injunction recipient? I don't need to know it, I don't want to know it. In fact I applaud that at least in one country in the world privacy is something other than a stomping ground for multinational corporations. UK at least tries to give some tools for its people to protect their privacy.
And yes the irony that by posting this on a US company's website I have put my own privacy in jeopardy is not lost on me.
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.
A council spokesman said: “The council has a duty of care to protect its employees and as this blog contains damaging claims about council officers, legal action is being taken to identify those responsible.”
That's some GREAT use for public money -- feeding lawyers, fueling scandals and elevating shit posted on twitter to something other than rumors.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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.
WTF is with editors these days? First, title of article is totally wrong, because this legislation has NOTHING to do with UK, but with US per se (they had to brought it to US court where there you can still sue for libel, but well you can't do superinjuction woodoo). Article also makes sensationalist claims that this decision helps "That Another Football Player" case - well, it doesn't. This is one, concrete person, who is sued for libel. This is not injunction to stop the spread of information - people who will retweet this person message or information won't be liable for any violation of law as long as they will reference this user and his information accordingly.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Personally I think he should be suing his solicitors for not acting in his best interest. The details of almost every "super" injunction have been released, thanks mainly to parliamentary privilege. Once the injunction was made a lot of people wanted to know who it was, so when his name does get released there was massive coverage. They would have known this, but advising your client to put his hand in the air and say mea culpa means you can't charge quite so much.
Quite frankly I couldn't give a damn about who it was and who he slept with, but some people do. The only reason I can see why is that people like Ryan Giggs actively sell themselves to the public - effectively training people to want to know everything about him - and he derives a handsome income from it. He also appears to sell himself as a family man, so having it made public that he had an affair may affect his earnings. Clearly he couldn't make a choice between keeping his dick in his pants and keeping his name clean.
I don't like these injunction has they can be abused - as seen by Trafigura case.
Freedom of speech does not include the right to slander or libel people you don't like, and it absolutely does not include the right to do so anonymously. You have the right to free speech - but you also must obey the libel laws, and you must be prepared to take the legal consequences of your free speech.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Right, because those are the only kind of lawsuits.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The freedom of speech is not in question in the article. The journalistic source is also not in question. It appears that people who find Twitter turning this information over to be controversial are mistaking Twitter for a journalism publication. Twitter is the mechanical "printing press". Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom on anonymity. The Boston Globe or NYT don't demand that THEIR identity be protected, they demand that the source be protected (and don't always win on that, and sometimes the journalist has to sit in the pen awhile).
In other words, there is good news and bad news about "self publication". The good news is that you don't have to convince a reporter or editor to run your story. The bad news is that you are identified the same as the editor or reporter is immediately identified when they run their story.
Gently reply
I ejaculate in vaginas.
Your right of free speech is juridiction dependent. You can have all the free speech you can have in the US. But if you anger some other governement because they consider that blasphemous/libelous/whatnot, then you better *never* go in *their* juridiction : you will be held to the full length of the law, free speech in the US or not. And there is not DIDLY SQUAT that the US could do agaisnt it.
What seems to be the matter here, and what's really riled up the Labor leader of Tyneside Council, Iain Malcom -- is the actions of an anonymous blogger -- Mr Monkey -- on his blog, rather than Twitter. Twitter is a sideshow. Mr Monkey has thrown most of his dookie on his blog, not on Twitter, but the ever-vengeful Iain Malcolm has seen fit to go after Twitter.
By the looks of it, Iain Malcom is a bit of a psychopath, who's waging a war against said anonymous blogger, at public expense. Mr Monkey runs a highly inflammatory blog, which has made unsubstantiated allegations against Mr Malcolm and his cronies, and so Iain Malcolm has been goaded into behaving unethically, by misusing public funds to lean on Twitter to find Mr Monkey so he can crush him in court.
Even if Mr Monkey is lying, I absolutely despite bullies and psychopaths, so I'm hoping that this will ultimately blow back on Iain Malcolm. His actions in this debacle, makes him seem like an extremely unsavoury character, who should probably be kept as far away from political power as possible as it is.
You say, "...this is one of the most boring distractions from real problems the media has been stirred up into obsessing itself with."
Leaving aside the fact that it is barely literate you have confused the footballer's indiscretion (Ryan Gigg's affair) with the issue at hand (freedom of speech.)
I couldn't really care less about what affairs Ryan Giggs or Hugh Bonneville have got themselves involved in but I do care very much that they have been able to take out court injunctions to prevent the press reporting the facts. The principle applies to the Giggs case, Sir Fred Goodwin's and more pointedly to the Trafigura injunction.
Some of those may seem petty while others are not, but the principle remains the same and it is not possible to pick and choose where it will be applied and where it will not. It has to be applied across the board precisely to avoid having a judge allowing some to hide behind an injunction while others cannot.
Twitter is a large corporation and they have done what we might have expected them to do; that is, to stuff their users who are the product which Twitter sells for profit and to bow to corporate entities who are the real customers of Twitter.
Freedom of speech does not include the right to slander or libel people you don't like, and it absolutely does not include the right to do so anonymously. You have the right to free speech - but you also must obey the libel laws, and you must be prepared to take the legal consequences of your free speech.
Yes it does. Btw. You have a small penis :P
and the US has defamation laws too.
You might as well quote the various UN resolutions regarding the left bank in Israel to say that they are binding. It makes no difference. If the government in question doesn't apply the law it has no effect and the 'freedom' does not exist.
Aside from the very long tradition of free speech in England and the UK, the people also have the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which guarantees free expression - but people should be responsible for what they say, and if someone makes untrue statements which impugn another person's character it is only fair that they should be held accountable.
Ban non-U.S. person to use our judicial system. If non-Americans get screw up by Americans, too bad it is your own fault.
At least in China it works that way, that is why it is so prosperous and literally immune during the economic downturn. If we EVER want an economic recovery it is time to copy some tricks in the Chinese playbook.
We have given the Brits too much free pass already, look at how our government treat BP. Just because we speak the same language means we are allies. Time to kick the bucket and show the finger.
Twitter: @dainsanefh
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
We don't have free speech in the sense that the US does. If you read the wording of the Human Rights declaration there are quite a lot of exceptions to all parts of it, e.g. national security. Well, actually that isn't that different to the US these days, but the point is that in some cases free speech is not allowed. In the UK "incitement to racial hatred" is a crime, in other words you are not free to say something which might induce someone else to hate others based on race. People have gone to jail for doing it. It is actually worse than just curtailing free speech because it creates a situation where the thoughts other people have because of something you said can incriminate you.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This whole thing was filed under "Don't give a fuck" until I read the part about the dirty tea sucking cretinous Brits using OUR courts for this shit.
I don't care what happens to soccer players or councilors in the UK, but when these turds wash up on our shores, then we need to stop this shit.
The trouble is, it is free speech in pretty much the sense that the US has it -- there are limitations in the USA too. I doubt Bradley Manning would (will?) get far on a freedom of speech defence. The situation in both countries is that there is a constitutional right to free speech, but there is a recognition that there are limits to freedom of speech, and government from time to time passes laws restricting speech that might or might not be within those limits; it then gets fought out in the courts.
The UK government seems to be arguing that the threat of racial violence in the UK is so real and imminent that incitement to racial hatred is comparable to shouting fire in a crowded cinema. I happen to think that argument is rubbish, but that's besides the point. There's nothing to stop the US government trying exactly the same thing. If they do then in both the UK and the USA it's then up to the courts to decide whether the argument is valid or whether it's a violation of the relevant constitution.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
How about Article 10 of the European Declaration of Human Rights
The what?
Do you mean the European Convention on Human Rights (which is nothing to do with the EU, and technically doesn't trump UK law within the UK), or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which is EU-related) which only applies to EU bodies and member states when implementing EU law?
While, under the Human Rights Act, UK courts are public authorities must act in accordance with the ECHR, if there's UK law (either an Act, or case law) that conflicts with the ECHR, they must follow the UK law. The courts can try to interpret the law compatibly, but if they can't, there's nothing the Court can do to strike out the law. In the Strasbourg Court, the ECHR will trump domestic law (to a degree), but all the ECtHR can really do is issue fines/award compensation. The UK follows the ECHR (some of the time) more for policy reasons than any legal requirement.
In any case, the ECHR doesn't include an absolute "right to free speech". It includes a qualified "right to freedom of expression". In particular, in article 10(2), the Charter notes that the
exercise of [this right], since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Which obviously includes libel, contempt of court and privacy. So, not only does the ECHR not trump UK law, in a privacy/libel case, Article 10 may apply, but so does Article 8 (the "right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence"), and neither trumps the other - it is just a balancing exercise for the Court.