Skip to main content

Twitter and Legal Issues

There is another post of alleged injunctions on Twitter. This time it is done by someone who associates themselves with "anonymous" - this is clear from the use of the anonymous mask image.

For the avoidance of doubt I don't support putting up lists of injunctions.

However, there are lots of issues with trying to stop this.

Firstly, it is very easy for anyone who intentionally wishes to put something up anonymously on the internet to do so. If someone is in England or Wales they can go to an internet cafe and establish an anonymous account with false details.

Secondly, if someone is out of the relevant jurisdiction (that is England and Wales) then they are not breaking the law if they do this.

I am not myself sure what the authorities can do to deal with this. The only people who are likely to be trapped by any legal action relating to twitter are the innocent people who have been making jokes and gossiping.

In the medium to long term it is, of course, possible to produce a form of technological solution. However, that in my view would be wrong because it would have to involve a massive shift in the freedom of people to use the internet. In practice it would involve effectively cutting the UK off from the rest of the world for many websites. This is something I personally would oppose.

As with the first intentional breach, this breach is unlikely to be one which can be forcibly removed from twitter.

Hence we are in a position whereby either reality needs to be changed to fit the law or the law needs to be changed to fit reality.

Personally I am one for the latter. I don't think that criminalising gossip is the way forward nor do I agree with producing a technological solution to give a form of chinese censorship of the internet as appears to be the preferred solution of the judiciary.

Comments

Paul said…
Quick question. How are the accounts that are posting these injunction details (not always accurately it appears) getting their information? Surely someone somewhere is accessing confidential information and either publishing it online or giving it to others to do so. Surely someone is breaking the law when they do this. Do you not agree that those persons should be prosecuted?
Jimmy said…
If it were not already clear, the above comment confirms you are now the go-to person for every tinfoil-hatted loon in the country. Congratulations.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…