Twitter to notify users of legal action against them...

HellFireClub

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0525/breaking67.html

I hope we can discuss this here, I'm amazed at how an injunction in another jurisdiction can have any legal impact on someone who is not in any way associate with that jurisdiction?!? How can you be in contempt of a court order when you are not bound by the laws of the land of that particular country?

I have nothing to do with this as in I haven't any to worry about, but would any Irish person tolerate their personal information being handed over to a legal firm in say for example the UK for pursuit through the criminal justice system, possibly up to and including extradition, when they have very clearly committed no crime in that land???

HellFireClub

Twitter will seek to notify its users so they can defend themselves before it hands over user information to the authorities, a senior manager said today when asked about a privacy dispute in Britain.
"Platforms should have responsibility not to defend the user, but to protect that user's right to defend him or herself," said Tony Wang, general manager of Twitter's European operations.
Users have posted details on Twitter of celebrity scandals, in contravention of so-called super injunctions.
Super injunctions, issued by English courts, ban media outlets from mentioning not only the details of the case and the identities of those involved but even the existence of the injunction itself.
Breaching the order would put someone in contempt of court, liable to an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.
Mainstream media organisations have reluctantly obeyed such court orders, but in recent weeks a string of identities have leaked, largely via Twitter and the wider Internet - in an echo of the unsuccessful attempts to suppress the publication of WikiLeaks cables on the Internet.
Lawyers representing one of the celebrities named, Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs, have asked US-based Twitter via a London court for information about the users who published his name in tweets.
Mr Wang, who was speaking at the e-G8 Internet forum in Paris, said he could not comment specifically on the cases in Britain, but said: "If we're legally required to turn over user information, to the extent that we can, we want to notify the user involved, let them know and let them exercise their rights under their own jurisdiction.
"That's not to say that they will ultimately prevail, that's not to say that law enforcement doesn't get the information they need, but what it does do is take that process into the court of law and let it play out there."
A British politician identified Giggs on Monday in parliament as the soccer star fighting a legal battle to prevent newspapers publishing allegations of an affair.
John Hemming, who campaigns for press freedom, used parliamentary privilege, which allows parliamentarians to raise legal issues without fear of prosecution.
Mr Hemming said he had acted after lawyers asked for information about Twitter users. "If you are going to have an expensive firm of lawyers chasing down ordinary people, with a view to threatening them with a jail sentence because they have gossiped about a footballer, that is fundamentally wrong," he told BBC television.
Britain's prime mMinister David Cameron has promised a review of privacy laws.

orourkeda

meh

Mr.Micro

Its absolutely sick IMO to pursue people in this fashion. Tweeters like most people will gossip and forget that all that is posted will be in the open. Giggs appears to be very vindictive in his pursuit of people who outed his behaviour.

The stupid court system should get real in the 21st century and this injunction business is unreal where anything can be covered up. An example is the toxic poison that affected people in the Ivory Coast by a Dutch company dumping its toxins there. That too was kept quiet until last year by an injunction granted in the UK, the place where you go to get an injunction....so long as you can pay.

wild_cat

Well done to the pair of them. Not only did they fuck over some ones partner they're fucking over the last realms of free speech on the internet.

HellFireClub

wild_cat wrote: »

Well done to the pair of them. Not only did they fuck over some ones partner they're fucking over the last realms of free speech on the internet.

But I don't see how any person can possibly be successful if that's what they are trying to do. The internet is not bound by the law of any one jurisdiction... If there is a court injunction in the UK saying I cannot do X, Y or Z, I'm clearly not bound by that injunction as a citizen of Ireland, posting a Tweet on Irish soil.

wild_cat

HellFireClub wrote: »

But I don't see how any person can possibly be successful if that's what they are trying to do. The internet is not bound by the law of any one jurisdiction... If there is a court injunction in the UK saying I cannot do X, Y or Z, I'm clearly not bound by that injunction as a citizen of Ireland, posting a Tweet on Irish soil.

I thought it was down to where the servers were based!

But I'm still angry!! All this kiss and tell nonsense is actually starting to affect things I take seriously now.

RachaelVO

HellFireClub wrote: »

But I don't see how any person can possibly be successful if that's what they are trying to do. The internet is not bound by the law of any one jurisdiction... If there is a court injunction in the UK saying I cannot do X, Y or Z, I'm clearly not bound by that injunction as a citizen of Ireland, posting a Tweet on Irish soil.

That would be my train of thought too. Infact I fail to see how they can go after individuals even in the UK. They are talking (mostly sh1te) online like they would in a pub, only it can be overheard by a far greater audience.

The Ryan Giggs thing was the worst kept secret on the planet. It's going to come out somewhere online, and if you've got web hosting in say costa rica, how can a UK court demand that the costa rican company take it down?

Maybe these judges are still thinking the British Empire is still up and running!

orourkeda

Why aren't all twitter users sent to jail just for using twitter

wild_cat

orourkeda wrote: »

Why aren't all twitter users sent to jail just for using twitter

I don't use it myself but its just this "trying to control everything" business that grinds my gears.

Mr.Micro

wild_cat wrote: »

I don't use it myself but its just this "trying to control everything" business that grinds my gears.

The multitude are punished for the antics of some little s*it with money.

Big Nasty

I don't really give a fcuk apart from the fact that that honey he was doggin' out of it is mega hot!

Bit of meat on her too, none of this skeletor carry on - a real woman in my estimation.

(Feel a little sorry for his wife though in fairness)

Kasabian

Edited on the advice of my Barrister.

RichieC

don't twitter about ****ty low brow Neanderthal news and it wont effect you... this time.

tommyboy2222

(Feel a little sorry for his wife though in fairness)

In fairness she is living a life of unimagineable luxury that she wouldn't be able to achieve herself.

Biggins

I tweeted about him. If Giggs comes after me so be it - but I will create holy publicity hell on a level even he won't be expecting.
His yet again latest of actions is going to further fcuk him up big time.
The gobschite just doesn't know when to shut the fcuk up.
What he is going to do now or try at least, will be seen as an attack on every person that consider using Twitter - and thats a lot of folk the world over to piss off.

The people that put money in his pocket better listen up - get word to him rapid and talk some sense into him.
If he's going to do this next stunt, he will be further forever fcuked with a bad image and will be hated moreso on a massive scale.

Giggs and his over-inflated ego can go fcuk itself.

latenia

All the years of living in a bizarre bubble and the influence of Alex Ferguson's agression towards the media must be seriously affecting his judgement here or else he's being badly advised by lawyers who can see this dragging on solely to their own benefit. He cheated; he was caught out; he should be focusing on rebuilding his marriage.

Herb Powell

Does no one else else think the idea of an injunction is fundamentally fuccked?

Blatter

Some people think they are totally anonymous on the internet and can say what ever they want without penalty.

Good enough for them I say.

HellFireClub

You have to ask what you would do though if you got handed High Court summons for the British High Court in London in the morning, all you could do is laugh at it and stick it in the bin, it has no meaning whatsoever to you an Irish person I imagine. The idea of someone wasting their time pursuing you on this basis I think is just the funniest thing that could happen to you...

The Shtig

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Some people think they are totally anonymous on the internet and can say what ever they want without penalty.

Good enough for them I say.

Other people think they can use their money to become anonymous and do what ever they want without penalty.

wild_cat

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Some people think they are totally anonymous on the internet and can say what ever they want without penalty.

Good enough for them I say.

Its not lies people were saying it was the truth!

St.Spodo

It'll be interesting to see him take legal action against 75000 people who tweeted his name.

How does this apply to Facebook? Only my friends can see my posts/jokes about him. How can this law be applied to Facebook ''likes''? This is absolutely nuts.

Blatter

The Shtig wrote: »

Other people think they can use their money to become anonymous and do what ever they want without penalty.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

wild_cat wrote: »

Its not lies people were saying it was the truth!

Oh but that doesn't matter. There is an injunction in place stipulating that any material mentioning his name with the said story, that was accessible in the UK(Twitter obviously is) was forbidden. They broke the injunction and therefore broke the law, they deserve to be punished.

ilovelamp2000

Herb Powell wrote: »

Does no one else else think the idea of an injunction is fundamentally fuccked?

No. They will continue to exist.

They aren't just used to stop the publication of someone's private dealings.

K-9

HellFireClub wrote: »

You have to ask what you would do though if you got handed High Court summons for the British High Court in London in the morning, all you could do is laugh at it and stick it in the bin, it has no meaning whatsoever to you an Irish person I imagine. The idea of someone wasting their time pursuing you on this basis I think is just the funniest thing that could happen to you...

It only applied to England and Wales was my understanding, hence the Scottish newspaper printing his picture. I can't see how the laws can cover this as what's to stop somebody from Spain naming him as a Spanish newspaper did.

Mr.Micro

HellFireClub wrote: »

You have to ask what you would do though if you got handed High Court summons for the British High Court in London in the morning, all you could do is laugh at it and stick it in the bin, it has no meaning whatsoever to you an Irish person I imagine. The idea of someone wasting their time pursuing you on this basis I think is just the funniest thing that could happen to you...

Not so sure about that IMO. If one did not answer the summons or failed to appear....the High Court could ( I stand to be corrected) issue one of those European Arrest Warrants I presume if the court deemed it appropriate, and then start extradition proceedings. All of course if the Court had the will but it is possible I do believe. To my mind it is the arrogance of Court that is affronted by the public which upsets the Judges, and a bit of normal common sense is required by the Court ie. move on and let the matter go.

Biggins

wild_cat wrote: »

Its not lies people were saying it was the truth!

Yep, people will forever talk, be it "over the garden fence" as Giggs high priced lawyers have put it or by another method.

So if there is untruth being told - they should be sued if there is tort damages done.
If one is expressing truth - being sued for expressing truths is a step too far - its an infringement of human rights.

One might not like whats been said (although its true) but then the right to speak of truths, should never be allowed to be stopped.
Thats the way dictators, despots, etc win and beat the people eventually into the ground and make them submissive to their will in many evil ways and then costs!

Mr.Micro

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.



Oh but that doesn't matter. There is an injunction in place stipulating that any material mentioning his name with the said story, that was accessible in the UK(Twitter obviously is) was forbidden. They broke the injunction and therefore broke the law, they deserve to be punished.

The irony, the sinner demanding that the sinners be duly punished.:(

jive

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Some people think they are totally anonymous on the internet and can say what ever they want without penalty.

Good enough for them I say.

Ya wouldn't know you were a United fan :pac:

Da Shins Kelly

Ryan Giggs can f*ck right off. I don't care what he was doing behind his wife's back, but all this injunction rubbish and trying to stifle free speech makes him the ultimate w*nker, in my opinion. People should be protecting the fundamental right to free speech in the last realm that has managed to escape censorship rather than pandering to a d*ck who's got enough money to make people shut up. We all know it was him, so he can just f*ck up.

Just sayin'.

squod

The law firm will just sue the wrong person, the kind with money. That'll lead to a costly court case (Or cases). 12 months later it's goodbye legal company, end of.

The Left Hand Of God

Biggins wrote: »

I tweeted about him. If Giggs comes after me so be it - but I will create holy publicity hell on a level even he won't be expecting.
His yet again latest of actions is going to further fcuk him up big time.
The gobschite just doesn't know when to shut the fcuk up.
What he is going to do now or try at least, will be seen as an attack on every person that consider using Twitter - and thats a lot of folk the world over to piss off.

The people that put money in his pocket better listen up - get word to him rapid and talk some sense into him.
If he's going to do this next stunt, he will be further forever fcuked with a bad image and will be hated moreso on a massive scale.

Giggs and his over-inflated ego can go fcuk itself.

Well you broke the law regardless how you feel about said law or the persons involved.

Lets say some young child was abused in my estate and the courts said he shouldn't be named to protect him etc

Would it be OK to tweet about it?

I don't think so.

I am all for twitter but people needs to realise it is the real world, in much the same ways boards.ie has standards regarding legal issues and court cases.

Just a fact of life.

Biggins

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Well you broke the law regardless how you feel about said law or the persons involved.

Lets say some young child was abused in my estate and the courts said he shouldn't be named to protect him etc

Would it be OK to tweet about it?

I don't think so.

I am all for twitter but people needs to realise it is the real world, in much the same ways boards.ie has standards regarding legal issues and court cases.

Just a fact of life.

I was NOT served with a British media injunction.
I was telling the truth.
I would not Tweet about a child. EVER. I too have standards - unlike Giggs when it comes to how kids should take preference!

The Left Hand Of God

Biggins wrote: »

I was NOT served with a British media injunction.
I was telling the truth.
I would not Tweet about a child. EVER. I too have standards - unlike Giggs when it comes to how kids should take preference!

You do have standards. Double standards.

Biggins

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

You do have standards. Double standards.

On that we will have to agree to disagree.

Da Shins Kelly

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Well you broke the law regardless how you feel about said law or the persons involved.

Lets say some young child was abused in my estate and the courts said he shouldn't be named to protect him etc

Would it be OK to tweet about it?

I don't think so.

I am all for twitter but people needs to realise it is the real world, in much the same ways boards.ie has standards regarding legal issues and court cases.

Just a fact of life.

Injunctions to protect rich f*ck ups are not the same as protecting minors who have been victimized.

The Left Hand Of God

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Injunctions to protect rich f*ck ups are not the same as protecting minors who have been victimized.

If it not some rich famous person who had the injunction then it would be wrong to name them?

It seems because it is a rich famous person it is OK to go against a court judgement.

Anyone else it is bad to go against a court judgement.

OK. I'll make note of that for the future.

Paully D

MCMLXXV wrote: »

(Feel a little sorry for his wife though in fairness)

She'll soon forgive him when she realises she can't spend £5,000 on shoes every day of the week.

Biggins

Well it looks like I have been accused here in this thread that I have broken the law.

Point of order. I would like to know EXACTLY - what Irish law have I broken?
Seriously.

Blatter

Biggins wrote: »

I was NOT served with a British media injunction.
I was telling the truth.
I would not Tweet about a child. EVER. I too have standards - unlike Giggs when it comes to how kids should take preference!

As already stated, the media injunction covered any material that is accessible in Britain. Content on Twitter is most certainly accessible in Britain. It was covered under the injunction, Giggs' legal team are well within their rights to take action, do you think they would have gone this far if they weren't?

hmmm

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Well you broke the law regardless how you feel about said law or the persons involved.

Errr do you think that people in Ireland are covered by British law? There is a law in Saudi that says women can't drive, do the Irish police round up women drivers as a consequence?

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

Is it just me or is Twitter down right now?

Paully D

niallo24 wrote: »

Is it just me or is Twitter down right now?

Fine for me, but apparently they're shutting down accounts of those who will be brought to court so perhaps you've been caught?

Mr.Micro

Biggins wrote: »

Well it looks like I have been accused here in this thread that I have broken the law.

Point of order. I would like to know EXACTLY - what Irish law have I broken?
Seriously.

You have not broken any law as far as I can see.

The Left Hand Of God

hmmm wrote: »

Errr do you think that people in Ireland are covered by British law? There is a law in Saudi that says women can't drive, do the Irish police round up women drivers as a consequence?

Sorry, from my last post you can see I have referred to it as a court judgement. A Law is a whole other thing.

Mr.Micro

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

As already stated, the media injunction covered any material that is accessible in Britain. Content on Twitter is most certainly accessible in Britain. It was covered under the injunction, Giggs' legal team are well within their rights to take action, do you think they would have gone this far if they weren't?

He is just pissed that he was outed and he proving more of bitch than any kiss and tell woman. He is sad.

Dr.Winston O'Boogie

Paully D wrote: »

Fine for me, but apparently they're shutting down accounts of those who will be brought to court so perhaps you've been caught?

:eek:

Biggins

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

As already stated, the media injunction covered any material that is accessible in Britain. Content on Twitter is most certainly accessible in Britain. It was covered under the injunction, Giggs' legal team are well within their rights to take action, do you think they would have gone this far if they weren't?

So in other words, the English courts think they can decide the world over what is can be said?
I'm sorry (my comment NOT aimed at you) but thats bollox.

We sent England packing and no foreign country is going to try and tell me what I can or cannot say from my own soil unless they come after me previously with an Irish legal document.


It was in their right to stop the British press if they wish. Its not in their right to stop the worlds press or methods of communication.
Who the fcuk does the English lawlords think they are!
They can go fcuk themselves. There is a principle here about them fcukwits overextending their powers.

This is still the Republic of Ireland - not still another state of the British empire.

niallo24 wrote: »

Is it just me or is Twitter down right now?

Working for me.

Gummy Panda

niallo24 wrote: »

Is it just me or is Twitter down right now?

It wasn't showing me a timeline. Should be working now.

Also why would you chase people on twitter? It just promotes the story more when you are trying to suppress it.

mconigol

They should ban them all from the internet.

Couple of thousand less idiots spouting nonsense that only other idiots want to hear.