Twitter Reveals User Details In UK Libel Case 127
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."
also, details (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Please explain how, injuntion aside, details of the the footballer thing are not libelous. Remember that truth isn't a defense in libel cases, merely that the details were made public with the intent to defame. If you're not personally involved in the footballer thing, it's none of your business is it?
Re:also, details (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [about.com]: "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: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as UK law, which means you are totally unqualified to comment on the subject.
Now that doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong. However, it happens that you are. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
However in the UK the newspaper (etc) must prove the accuracy of its statement. Hence the proverb, "if in doubt, leave it out".
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is an absolute defense in libel cases; whether there was malicious intent is only relevant in cases of qualified privilege (for instance, reporting on proceedings in parliament, or attempting to claim that a defamatory statement was made in the course of reasonable journalistic practice). English libel law requires that the person making a defense prove that what they are saying is true (rather than requiring the person making the complaint to prove that the supposed defamatory statement is false), bu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably think it's pronounced Tin iss ee day and it's an island in the Caribbean.
Re: (Score:2)
Iirc the US has now done this at a Federal level with the SPEECH Act [wikimedia.org], however that only protects against libel cases where there would be an obvious 1st amendments defence in the US for the same "libel".
However, in this case, it isn't Twitter that is being sued for libel. The libel case is going on in the UK (technically E+W) and involves UK parties; Twitter is only being brought in as an innocent third party to hand over subscriber details. Twitter will likely have immunity under the SPEECH Act, so can't
wat (Score:2)
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.
California company obeys California court order (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Yeah, because the US *never* tries to override or manipulate a foreign court to get to foreign persons...
*cough* Assange *cough* McKinnon *cough*
Re: (Score:1)
Re:California company obeys California court order (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
I would be surprised if the trail didn't lead back to a TOR node or proxy. That is basic stuff for staying anonymous online.
Re: (Score:2)
Score 1 for using NAT instead of IPv6.
There is indeed safety in numbers.
Granted, the twitter user probably doesn't only post from a phone, and even if so, the police can profile the user by correlating enough posts of the user to the location data, but a layer of obscurity is better than nothing.
I'd personally use TOR and a TOR-only account if I wanted to write something that might get me into trouble, but that's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a civil case, so the police will not be involved, but even if they were, they could only trace future posts as the IP data would only tell them that the person was posting from somewhere in the Tyneside area. That doesn't really narrow things down any, because very few people outside of South Tyneside are going to care what these officials are up to.
Re: (Score:3)
This case isn't about Ryan Giggs. It is about some officials at South Tyneside Council who deny allegations of ballot rigging, drug taking and expenses fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
South Tyneside Council has nothing to do with Ryan Giggs as far as I'm aware.
Re: (Score:1)
This is absurd. Tweeting is like saying something on the street in public. How can you be prosecuted for expressing yourself? Time to dump Twitter and find a new ground for exercising free speech.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:California company obeys California court order (Score:4, Informative)
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:Nice try but wrong; UK does not have free speec (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:California company obeys California court order (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Troll
Ahhh, the mods [ajr.org] are more cowardly than a drone pilot... Bombs away from a nice safe distance so as to not get any of their own blood on their nice suit..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not quite a lawyer, but there was an interesting discussion on whether Internet postings were slander or libel in Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 657 [bailii.org] (see 7, and the previous High Court judgment by Eady J). Unfortunately as the appeal was dismissed by consent, and the claims were subsequently found to be without merit (due to not being defamatory or their being obvious defences), no conclusion was reached.
Re: (Score:1)
gh hf fghdafgcvb cxvbcvbheh
More flames? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
it has to do with how twitter has grown itself to a size where they start getting both carrier type of lawsuits(give us what you know of customer 'xx') and press lawsuits(don't print this and that or else). frankly it's the fault of their business model, they shouldn't have started recommending stuff un-automatically(technically, spamming and moderating user names got them into this mess).
He's suing the wrong people (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Yes thats right, he kicks a ball around, in public, for millions of the publics money. If he was the best football player on the planet but played in a dark room, where no one could see him I sincerely doubt he would make the money he has made.
In summation he made his money on the back of public perception, if he chooses to be involved in actions which alter the publics perception of him, he cannot demand to be suddenly out of the public eye.
Actually he can buy a small property in Kamchatka, and stay out of
Re: (Score:2)
If he was the best football player on the planet but played in a dark room, where no one could see him I sincerely doubt he would make the money he has made.
What the hell? That doesn't really make any sense at all. Obviously if he's playing a dark room where no one can see him then he's not going to make money because no one can see him.. and therefore they don't know what he's doing. I could be the best football player in the world, playing in my backyard at home, but I don't make any money because my skills haven't been proved.. you should try a new argument.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, since when was I arguing about football in dark rooms? I used that example to show his fame and wealth only exists because he was in the public eye. The public's scrutiny of his life was because he put himself up for that scrutiny, had he not been an amazing athlete in public view (ie. in a dark room) the benefits (big money, fame, etc) would not have come but neither would the scrutiny of his life.
Please frame your responses in with an eye to the entire subject of a post rather than an excerpt that on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand how you can incorrectly read my comments this many times.
If you choose to live in the public eye, you've also chosen to live with the consequences.
Freedom Of Speech, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Does this include private conversations? How about private conversations in a public space? In other words, I cannot both be in a public place AND talk gossip? Because that is what this is about. People eavesdropping on all possible conversations (twitter) and then sue anyone whose conversations you do not like.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is not, in any reasonable sense, a place to have private conversations. A more interesting question perhaps is whether this is slander (defamation in a public but transitory form, as by telling a lot of people verbally) and defamation in a permanent form (as by printing a book). In fact, in this day and age is slander even possible?
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, in this day and age is slander even possible?
Well, you could commit slander by, oh I don't know, telling a lot of people verbally...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming none of them record it on their phones
Re: (Score:3)
Expecting to have a private conversation on Twitter is like having a discussion with megaphones on the street and expecting that to be somehow private.
For heaven's sake, when did we remove the clue gene?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom Of Speech, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You might not have a protected right to slander, but you absolutely should have the ability to post any kind of information in public anonymously if you really need to.
The news (and warning) here is that twitter is not the right channel to use if you wish to remain anonymous. Perhaps this is not news to everybody... but after all the "twitter: tool of the people" stories to come out of places like Egypt, it is probably a timely reminder.
Re:Freedom Of Speech, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Except telling the truth is neither slander nor libel. This law is consistent in every country I have heard it used in.
You should check Italian law. In Italian law you are not allowed to use as defense the "truth" or "notoriety" of statements in defense of a slander or libel case unless very specific scenarios apply (statements about civil servants about their responsibilities, if there are penal proceedings, if the "victim" asks for the truth to be verified in the proceedings).
Re:Freedom Of Speech, eh? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
(I am not a lawyer...)
In Australia, Defamation is an interesting complication, though.
For example, while you could say "Ryan Giggs had an extra-marital affair with Imogen Thomas", yes, it just means you could say it privately, or in the context of, say, the media. If I were to erect a giant billboard outside their house saying the same, while completely true, would be defamation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are incorrect, it is perfectly possible to review restaurants negatively without libel. Of course, just like in the US, that doesn't prevent people from suing you but unless something you said is factually incorrect you will win. The onus is on the accuser to prove that what you said is incorrect, and that you knew it was so at the time. We don't have punitive damages here so the amount they are awarded if they win is based on the financial loss they have suffered.
Re: (Score:2)
something counts as libel if it's considered damaging whether it's true or not
That's not exactly true. The problem is that it's up to the person accused of libel to prove that what they said was true, rather than the person making the accusation of libel to prove that what was said is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even if it was libel or slander, too damn bad... He has every right to say that he didn't, and that's as far as he should be allowed to take it.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, and I forgot to add, he has the right to say the accuser is a liar and anything else he can think of...
Re: (Score:1)
Except ... this judgement isn't related in any way to Ryan Giggs or superinjunctions. It's about revealing the source of very specific, possibly untrue, allegations of actual malfeasance in reference to the governance of Sunderland.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true in the states (for now--Obama seems to be on a personal crusade against whistleblowers). However, in British law, libel has much lower requirements to satisfy, and the accused has a much more difficult time proving innocence while facing fairly stiff penalties. It probably stems from not having the freedom of speech explicitly recognized.
IANAL (especially not a British one), but in the Ryan Giggs case, I believe merely mentioning something prohibited by a superinjunction constitutes as libel (yo
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is also an absolute defense. .... Concepts like deliberate malice need to be part of their laws as well as proof of financial harm.
Malice is part of UK defamation law; truth is not an absolute defence if the motive was malice. Namgge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Who is to decide what is and isn't reasonable?
Re: (Score:2)
So do you believe I should be allowed to email your boss and colleagues / friends / partner / newspapers / whoever else that you are a sadistic paedophile with details of your illicit sexual encounters?
Re: (Score:2)
So do you believe I should be allowed to email your boss and colleagues / friends / partner / newspapers / whoever else that you are a sadistic paedophile with details of your illicit sexual encounters?
Yes, that is the price we must pay if we want free speech.
Twitter v. Journalism (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I disagree. I think what we're seeing here is a digital reflection of the same sort of information exchange that would happen normally verbally face to face or via telephone. We are in an adjustment period, the Information age makes old laws irrelevant as our new instantaneous communication and information archival capabilities become a part of human culture.
Or, would you deny that in public places -- the pub, the park, the barber shop -- that these very same sorts things are said by the general public
Re: (Score:2)
I think what we're seeing here is a digital reflection of the same sort of information exchange that would happen normally verbally face to face or via telephone.
Just because Twitter does this 140 character limitation doesn't magically make it the equivalent of a conversation. You hit on a lot of good points, but the equivalent of a pub conversation is IRC. Telephone? XMPP. Twitter exists to publish your thoughts permanently. IRC logs would be a gray area, but what if you tape-recorded the pub and published the audio at a later date?
What we're seeing here is an abuse of the legal system by some blockhead that the public sought fit to give tons of money because
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Twitter does this 140 character limitation doesn't magically make it the equivalent of a conversation. You hit on a lot of good points, but the equivalent of a pub conversation is IRC. Telephone? XMPP. Twitter exists to publish your thoughts permanently. IRC logs would be a gray area, but what if you tape-recorded the pub and published the audio at a later date?
I think you have not yet looked at the larger picture -- All the information is capable of being recorded and played back, we have not always had this capability. I say it is part of the evolution of man, that we are in the process of entering a new age where this will be the norm. We will develop ways to maintain our privacy when desired, but the culture of man is born of thoughts outside of one mind -- we are beings that have discovered the benefit of having an external mental database. First with spok
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could you stop, please? (Score:4, Insightful)
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. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs. Ryan Giggs.
Bring it on you tea-guzzling fucktards. I'll be in London the weekend of June 18th.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring it on you tea-guzzling fucktards. I'll be in London the weekend of June 18th.
Whilst in London, I suggest you address your repeated civil disobedience call to the appropriate officer of the judiciary.
These gentlemen can be found in the vicinity of many drinking establishments. You can recognise them by their generally shaven heads. They will be wearing either a Union Jack T-shirt or little or no upper body covering, may have a dozen or so tattoos, appear large and threatening (don't worry! They're friendly really) and they will be drinking copious amounts of lager.
Go up to them a
Re: (Score:2)
Superb, I shall schedule this for that Saturday after brunch.
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by this? Dogtanian has assured me that they are kindly gents.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you. Your right to name him is a complete irrelevance to you. It's not a serious political issue, it's not a serious social issue, it doesn't advance any public debate and it's not going to make the slightest difference to your life, or anyone else who isn't directly involved. This case isn't primarily about rights, it's a
Re: (Score:2)
Libel and privacy are actually two entirely orthogonal concepts. For example something could be true (so by definition not libellous) but it could still violate privacy laws because it's nobody else's business.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
At this rate we'll get the reputation of being as lawsuit-happy as the US :-(. Though we've been Reagan's bitch ever since Thatcher. As, sadly, has the US.
Re: (Score:3)
England is the go-to country for defamation lawsuits. Scottish courts are nowhere near as generous with their damage awards.
Re: (Score:3)
Is anything Scottish anywhere near generous? They only put salt on their porridge because it's cheaper than sugar.
P.S. Nicely picked up. I missed it first time.
Re: (Score:2)
the trotting out of stereotyped remarks is a clear indicator of one who is either too weak or too stupid to come up with thoughts and judgments of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
stereotypes are just shortcuts to the truth.
Lemme see... ACs are mostly trolls who aren't worth taking seriously.
Hey... worked in this case at least!
Re: (Score:2)
I do beg your pardon - for forgetting that you're also dour ginger alcoholics with no sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Is anything Scottish anywhere near generous? They only put salt on their porridge because it's cheaper than sugar.
the trotting out of stereotyped remarks is a clear indicator of one who is either too weak or too stupid to come up with thoughts and judgments of their own.
Not surprising, he's probably American. All Americans are religious nutcases who think that Pi = 3 (*) and know nothing about the world north of Buttfuck, North Dakota. ;-)
:-)
Actually... probably more truth in that one than the "mean Scot" stereotype, eh guys?
(*) I'm thinking that this one should be called "American Pi"
Re: (Score:2)
All Americans are religious nutcases who think that Pi = 3 (*) and know nothing about the world north of Buttfuck, North Dakota. ;-)
Just goes to show - who could expect some commie eurotrash to know anything about the great country which is US?
1. Value of pi varies by state. This is because the US Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to regulate it - it is reserved to the States and the People. Anyway, what with pi being way above 4 in UK, Germany and other socialist countries, it's not surprising that you're jealous of ours being so low.
2. Buttfuck is in Alabama.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:US citizens are such fatties (Score:2)
Right, because those are the only kind of lawsuits.
Re: (Score:1)