We hasten to add that the feed may well be full of scurrilous rumour and outright lies, but we can't help wondering in that case why the tweeter in question would pick such an odd selection of celebs to traduce.
Naming no names, some of the tweets seem plausible, reflecting existing rumours, while others are downright ridiculous. Celebrities and companies attempting to avoid bad press probably hate Twitter for undiluted and uncontrollable revelations like these, but on the other hand, Twitter does allow for celebrities to defend themselves.
Celebrity, er, famous person Jemima Khan is the only named celeb to do so, denying being involved in a super-injunction banning mention of photos of herself with Top Gear presenter Clarkson.
Plus I'm getting vile hate tweets," she writes. It does seem rather unlikely. The celebs named in the feed are trending, as is the word ' redacted '. It's not clear where all this leaves Twitter with regard to libel law. Social-networking sites have been coming under increased scrutiny recently, with the Press Complaints Commission considering extending its auspices to cover the Twitter feeds of news publishers and the journalists they employ.
For a start, Twitter is incorporated in California, where the constitutional right to freedom of expression outweighs concerns over privacy. In addition, online publishers in the US are covered by the Communications Decency Act, which says web companies are not liable for what their users post. Likewise, the Glasgow-based Sunday Herald became the first UK newspaper to name the footballer following legal advice that the injunction did not apply in Scotland. Ultimately, however, Banks believes that it is not the letter of the law that protects ordinary Twitter users, but the sheer difficulty of singling out and tracking down so many offenders.
Prime Minister David Cameron has said the situation is "unsustainable", suggesting the law may have to be revisited. The power of Twitter, it seems, has not yet been fully realised. Joshua Rozenberg on law. Banksy's Blog. Wicked whispers But how dangerous could tweeting really be? As you may be aware, a plain old i. So, for example, if an injunction is issued to stop demolition of a building until the court can determine if the building deserves protection as an historic landmark, the demolition company, and the organizations for whom they are working, can be said to be enjoined from tearing the building down.
A celebrity may request an injunction against a news organization, enjoining them from printing, publishing, or otherwise sharing private information about the celebrity. In Europe, which has somewhat different — and stricter — privacy laws than does the U. A super-injunction not only stops the enjoined party from sharing the personal and private details of the person who is protected by the injunction, but it also stops the enjoined party from telling anybody that there is an injunction at all.
The fact that the celebrity got an injunction is supposed to be a big secret. Earlier this week an unnamed individual created the Twitter account InjunctionSuper, from which he or she posted exactly 6 message tweets , naming some very high profile celebrities who had allegedly taken out super-injunctions.
Now, of course, nobody is supposed to mention that these celebrities have super-injunctions, and so the very act of stating that is, under EU law, violating the very super-injunctions which they are outing. If in fact these celebrities do have super-injunctions, then by discussing them, InjunctionSuper is in violation of them. Perhaps even more interesting is that anybody re-tweeting those revealing messages could also be in violation and, perhaps, Twitter could be liable for not suspending the account.
Practically speaking, however, going after Twitter users for repeating what some anonymous person said about someone in another country, well.. And Twitter itself, as a U. In any event, this is, likely, all just a tempest in a teapot.
The subjects of the 6 tweets — at least the ones who are talking — are denying having taken out a super-injunction. The Twitter account is completely devoid of anything giving it any credibility — it still even has the default egg image as its profile picture — and it is only following 3 accounts, none of which are remarkable in any way. What is remarkable is that InjunctionSuper has amassed over , followers, 40, of those jumping on in just the first 24 hours.
0コメント