// Home / News

Judge adds Twitter to injunction list

By Reuters

Posted on 13 May 2011 at 15:16

A UK judge has banned Twitter users from identifying a brain-damaged woman in one of the first attempts to prevent the website from revealing sensitive information.

The ruling follows the publication on Twitter of a list of celebrities alleged to have tried to cover up sexual indiscretions by obtaining court gag orders.

The injunction, dated yesterday, includes Twitter and Facebook in the list of media prohibited from disclosing the information.

It was issued in the Court of Protection in the case of a mother who wants to withdraw life support from her brain-damaged daughter. It prevents the identification of the woman and those caring for her.

"This is among the first injunctions specifically referring to Twitter and Facebook, but there have been others banning publication on the internet," said Keith Arrowsmith, intellectual property and media partner at law firm Ralli Solicitors.

Lack of clarity

However, it is unclear how enforceable the injunction will be given the global nature of the internet and the scope for anonymity. Lawyers say plans to protect leaks of information protected by a British injunction on US-based Twitter show that court orders to gag the press are unsustainable.

MP John Hemming, who is compiling a report on the strictest kind of gag orders, called "superinjunctions", said the fact that people can sign up for Twitter or Facebook without verifying identity meant injunctions relied on goodwill.

"They (injunctions) depend really on people's willingness to follow the rules rather than any ability to force it on them," Hemming said.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

And what happens is...

With media attention covering this injunction or super-injunctions, it makes it more appealing to try to find out who is at the center of them.

Maybe without THIS article, I would have remained oblivious to it!

"However, it is unclear how enforceable the injunction will be given the global nature of the internet and the scope for anonymity."

Anonymity is not the issue behind enforceability, the fact that injunctions only gag the British media, not the media of other countries is the issue.

Twitters servers are based in the US therefore are not legally bound by injunctions created in the UK!

Injunctions do not stop you or I legally talking about the specifics with fiends in a pub or at home etc...

That being said, I do believe that the wishes of "this" injunction should be followed, from a sensitivity perspective.

By wake1976 on 13 May 2011

If you want to trade in the UK, then you need to abide by UK law. Its up to Twitter to ensure the law is followed by its users. If not, then Twitter should be blocked by all ISP. Sounds harsh, but its as simple as that!

By jagdipa on 15 May 2011

@jagdipa:

I have better idea - just have ring fenced web with government approved websites only, plus all users require an ID to log-in. Here, problem solved.

By Lomskij on 16 May 2011

@jagdipa

Seriously?

The internet is World Wide. The clue is in the WWW.

It is nto up to twitter to ensure that the law is followed by it's users.
That's like saying that the garage you bought your car form is responsible for ensuring you do not use the car to break the law!

On top of that, Twitter does not "Trade" in the UK.

By wake1976 on 16 May 2011

@jagdipa

If you're not trolling then you either you haven't thought through your statement, or everyone else here is misunderstanding you.

You want Twitter to make sure their users abide by the law of every country from which it is accessible? If not you want to just block them?

By SirRoderickSpode on 16 May 2011

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.