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

Re:Could you stop, please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs
My right to free speech is more important than the right to privacy of a public individual being protected by an abusive court order in a completely different jurisdiction. The fact that this is a legally enforceable order handed down by a branch of government makes it a political issue and thus political speech. If a court order was never issued in the first place people would have stopped caring by now.

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

[jonbryce]

Well it is English people using the Californian court system to sue English people.
Now they have the information they requested from Twitter, they will go back to England and take a similar action against the ISP. Then they will commence libel proceedings against the Twitter account holder; but if the tweets came from a cellphone connection - and twitter has a higher than average proportion of its visits from cellphones, the telco will only be able to say approximately which county the tweet came from, as lots of users share the same public IP address behind a NAT connection. For everyone else, there is the insecure Wifi defence.

Re:California company obeys California court order

[digitig]

This is absurd. Tweeting is like saying something on the street in public.

I am not a lawyer, but I know the difference between libel and slander. I'm not sure you do.

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?

Freedom Of Speech, eh?

[gowen]

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.

Re:Freedom Of Speech, eh?

[thegarbz]

Except telling the truth is neither slander nor libel. This law is consistent in every country I have heard it used in.

Ryan Giggs had an extra-marital affair with Imogen Thomas.

See? That wasn't libel.

Re:Freedom Of Speech, eh?

[pdabbadabba]

This problem also occurred to the U.S Supreme Court in 1964. We now have an exception in defamation law for speech about public officials on matters of public concern. A public figure has to show that the speaker either knew what he was saying was false or spoke with reckless disregard for the truth. It's a very very tough standard to meet.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

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:Freedom Of Speech, eh?

[Jedi Alec]

Freedom of Speech is the ability to speak without consequence

Wrong. Dead wrong in fact. With every freedom comes the responsibility of using it wisely.

Freedom of Speech merely curtails what steps the state may take to stop you from saying things. It does not mean you can just say anything about anyone without any consequences.

Re:also, details

[DrgnDancer]

I believe truth is a defense in in US libel cases, which is where the case is apparently being tried. According to the Journalism about.com article: "Libel is by definition false. Anything that is provably true cannot be libelous. " I'll grant you that "about.com" is not he most reliable source ever, but I doubt they'd get this wrong. I realize that in the UK truth is not a Libel defense (which makes no sense to me at all, but no one asked me), but in California it almost certainly is.

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.