This is an issue that has much wider problems than the one event of "super injunctions"
The extend to which country-level laws can apply to the internet are far from resolved.
I seriously doubt that this will resolve them.
On a converse note; a society that is so enthralled with the idea of a footballer having an affair is so unimaginably pathetic that they probably deserve any restrictions they end up with. Those of us fighting for free speech current seem to be doing so for those who delight in violating the privacy of individuals.
Which makes be feel, frankly, dirty.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 23:00, iain.macdonald@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Indeed. There is an *outside* chance of an attempt to claim jurisdiction over the entire Internet, like civil courts have done, but I am informed such is highly unlikely and would be very difficult to achieve if they went for it. In short, there are softer targets south of the border - thousands of them.
But, I do feel obliged to point out a tiny risk does remain.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities' From: Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> Date: Wed, May 25, 2011 10:39 pm
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 22:11 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
On 25 May 2011 09:46, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly@pobox.com> wrote:
I think that the Wikimepdia community should be glad that the Twitter exposure and the question in Parliament (under parliamentary privilege) deflected interest away from the Wikipedia entry.
Although the original Telegraph journalist/editor didn't quote it, I did say in talking to the journalist that UK editors would be liable personally for edits they made :-)
For future reference:
_Wiki editors in England and Wales_ - provided the super-injunction holder has not been granted corresponding restraint by the Scottish Courts.
Legal advice provided to Wikinewsies indicates they'd have a great deal of trouble getting that from the courts here - or prosecuting because someone broke some silly English judge's ruling.
-- Brian McNeil. -- brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org | Wikinews Accredited Reporter. http://en.wikinews.org | http://www.wikinewsie.org "Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news".
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 23:05 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
This is an issue that has much wider problems than the one event of "super injunctions"
The extend to which country-level laws can apply to the internet are far from resolved.
I seriously doubt that this will resolve them.
On a converse note; a society that is so enthralled with the idea of a footballer having an affair is so unimaginably pathetic that they probably deserve any restrictions they end up with. Those of us fighting for free speech current seem to be doing so for those who delight in violating the privacy of individuals.
Which makes be feel, frankly, dirty.
Tom, I agree with the sentiment. But,...
The fourth estate needs a "French Revolution", as does an idiotic, out-of-touch, legal system that believes a famous figure who has an affair with another famous figure can sweep it under the carpet.
Madame Guillotine for the newspapers who consider the "private life" of an overpaid footballer news. Ditto for Max Clifford, who'd pimp the jilted mistress' story, and - lastly - likewise for Carter-Fuck, and ilk, who promise they can do better than King Canute at holding back the waves on the Internet.
On 25 May 2011 23:05, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
On a converse note; a society that is so enthralled with the idea of a footballer having an affair is so unimaginably pathetic that they probably deserve any restrictions they end up with. Those of us fighting for free speech current seem to be doing so for those who delight in violating the privacy of individuals.
Society isn't enthralled by the affair, it's enthralled by the attempt to keep the affair secret. There is a big difference. It if weren't for the super-injunction, the story would have appeared on page 5 of some tabloids and in a few gossip mags and would have been forgotten in a couple of days.
From the Telegraph
*****
Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs
Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a landmark legal case.
Follow Richard Gray on Twitter
For the first time, the American social networking site has bowed to a court action brought by a British group complaining that they were libelled in messages.
The individuals who brought the legal action were councillors and officials at a local authority, South Tyneside.
They launched the case in an attempt to unmask an anonymous whistle-blower who calls himself Mr Monkey.
*****
Full text at: http://bit.ly/jHINYl
And please don't forget "Follow Richard Gray on Twitter".... and Mr Monkey.
Gordo
Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs
Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a landmark legal case.
There is quite a big difference between asking Twitter to release user information in pursuit of a libel action (which is what is happening here), and doing so in pursuit of a contempt of court case resulting from a superinjunction.
I'm not sure that Californian courts would be as happy to assist in the superinjunction case.
Chris
On 29/05/2011 14:54, Chris Keating wrote:
Twitter reveals secrets: Details of British users handed over in landmark case that could help Ryan Giggs Twitter has handed over the confidential details of British users in a landmark legal case.There is quite a big difference between asking Twitter to release user information in pursuit of a libel action (which is what is happening here), and doing so in pursuit of a contempt of court case resulting from a superinjunction.
I'm not sure that Californian courts would be as happy to assist in the superinjunction case.
Chris
Yes, there is a difference.
But the media is focussed on Twitter.... and never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org