30,000 Twitter users could face legal action over gag breaches

from the Independent UK:




The attempt to use super-injunctions to gag the media in the internet age reached new levels of absurdity yesterday.

A Scottish newspaper became the first mainstream British publication to identify the Premier League footballer who is attempting to prevent discussion on Twitter about his affair with the former Big Brother star Imogen Thomas. Meanwhile it was reported that a High Court judge had referred an unidentified journalist to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, to consider a criminal prosecution for breaching a privacy injunction with a tweet about another footballer.

The move could potentially mean that criminal proceedings would be brought against 30,000 people who have broken one or other of the contested injunctions by tweeting in recent days the identities of those involved.

Yet on a day when the increasingly farcical attempts of lawyers to restrict the flow of information about their clients unravelled further, a Scottish newspaper devoted its front page to a clearly recognisable photo of one of the footballers involved. Below the picture, a caption read: "Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren't supposed to tell you that..." .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/30000-twitter-users-could-face-legal-action-over-gag-breaches-2287787.html

:rofl:

PB

And he was able to obtain a "super-injunction" to prevent the UK media from reporting it. A "super-injunction" not only prevents the UK media from reporting the alleged affair, it also prevents them from reporting the existence of the gag order itself! So no UK newspaper has mentioned the name of Ryan Giggs in connection with the alleged affair, but it was reported on Twitter and re-tweeted by thousands of people. So now Giggs has sued Twitter. The problem for him is that Twitter is based in California and is protected by the First Amendment, so they will probably simply ignore the lawsuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_super-injunction_controversy

This just shows the ridiculousness of one country trying to unilaterally repress news in the Internet age. Furthermore, the injunction applies only in England, and today a Scottish paper decided to print Gigg's name and report the allegations. And thanks to the internet almost everyone in England knows about the alleged affair, many more people than if he had not taken out the injunction in the first place.

Effectively, the USA is exporting the First Amendment to other countries. Which is a great thing.

nt

When an elderly bewigged London judge is attempting to lecture 30,000 Twitter users on the importance of not disclosing the indiscretions of a millionaire soccer player, I know whose side I am on.

Haven't seen a good example of that in a while.

US pubs have been successfully sued in the past in the UK and elsewhere over defamation