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

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…