Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Twitter Privacy

Twitter Prepared To Name Users 292

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Prepared To Name Users

Comments Filter:
  • wrong name (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mr Reaney ( 544642 ) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @05:42AM (#36248464)
    Ryan Giggs

    Does that count as breaking the injunction? :)
  • Re:This is dumb (Score:5, Informative)

    by SimonTheSoundMan ( 1012395 ) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @05:53AM (#36248534) Homepage

    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 [telegraph.co.uk], 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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xest ( 935314 ) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @06:35AM (#36248718)

    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:Background (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zugok ( 17194 ) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @06:41AM (#36248742)

    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:This is dumb (Score:4, Informative)

    by L4t3r4lu5 ( 1216702 ) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @06:49AM (#36248786)
    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:wrong name (Score:4, Informative)

    by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @06:50AM (#36248790)

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

In less than a century, computers will be making substantial progress on ... the overriding problem of war and peace. -- James Slagle