Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Twitter Faces Legal Action By Footballer Over Privacy

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/20/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-privacy

A footballer has launched legal action against Twitter after a number of the microblogging site's users purported to reveal the name of the player who allegedly had an affair with model Imogen Thomas.

The footballer's legal team began the legal action at the high court in London on Wednesday, in what is thought to be the first action against the US social media firm and its users.

The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown". The latter are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts" in the court document, according to reports.

I wonder how many thousands are going to get wasted on this? Mind you I bet the lawyers are rubbing there hands at this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1192244/Gossip-good-Women-chat-regularly-happier-healthier.html

Their menfolk might argue that the last thing women need is another reason to gossip.

But it actually makes them healthier, scientists claim.

Research shows gossiping boosts levels of progesterone, a hormone which reduces anxiety and stress.

Although it would appear this legal action maybe against basic human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is he bringing the action for - libel or breach of the injunction? The answer to that question will pretty much tell you whether he was named as the person having the affair with Thomas correctly or not.

If he was named incorrectly and is bringing a libel action, I hope he sues Twitter into the ground. The Internet has enabled the circulation of untrue rumours to happen so much more quickly and widespread than was previously possible that IMO the sites that enable this process have to be held accountable. If, however, he was the shagger, then we're back to the issue as to the pros and cons of super injunctions: the action against Twitter hasn't really changed the terms of that debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's ****** going to do, sue the entire world? :rolleyes:

Super-injunctions shouldn't exist.

edit- on second thoughts I won't name him :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the story about Fred Goodwin's affair has come out, the judgement of the pin-striped, periwigged, ponce and all-round bottom-feeder Justice Eady is seriously called into question. It might act as a constraint for this prat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck with that one mate.

British judges may delude themselves that they are all powerful but the reality is that their writ runs no further than the UK borders.

Twitter is based in the US and protected by the US First Amendment so the chances of winning a court case there are nil.

It is possible that Twitter might divulge the identity of the posters but that may not help the plaintiff since it seems likely that the tweets originated via a UK media outlet who may well be using a foreign national to do the posting. If that person was to turn out to be a US citizen then again the legal process would fail. The only alternative would be to take a civil case in the US but that would by its very nature out the individual concerned since they would have no right of anonymity in a US court.

The UK courts might try to bar Twitter from being accessed in the UK but that would be a massive own goal for the UK as a place in which to undertake any sort of IT activity. Since the sh*t for brains footballers depend on that very same economy to pay their laughable wages it would ultimately be one of the biggest phyrric victories in history.

In the last resort Celebs exist so that their private lives can be smeared across the papers to divert the masses from considering more serious political and economic matters.The fact that they do not realise that is the only reason for their existence shows how deluded they have become. For that reason alone super injunctions are doomed eventually to fail.

Any way if the claims were not true the litigant could use the old fashioned libel laws to press their case. the fact that they are using the privacy element of the Human Rights legislation instead (apparently only available to those with a cool £50,000 to burn) allows one to draw ones own conclusions about the matter.

BTW entering the name of the footballer who must not be identified on pain of death and the word Twitter in Google only brought up 3,430,000 hits so I am sure that the UK courts will have no trouble identifying all the miscreants and dishing out suitable punishment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with half a brain cell can find out who this footballer is by doing a search on Google.

Once upon a time I used to respect him as a player, now I could'nt care less.

If he had remained faithful to his wife and stopped shagging around this injunction would never have been needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with half a brain cell can find out who this footballer is by doing a search on Google.

Once upon a time I used to respect him as a player, now I could'nt care less.

If he had remained faithful to his wife and stopped shagging around this injunction would never have been needed.

Apparently Twitter were thinking of setting a European outlet based in London

I expect that decision will now be reviewed and those jobs will go to some other country

Yet another triumph for Premier league parasites who grow fat while the rest of the UK economy withers

I hope all their clubs go bust and they wind up kicking a ball about on the local park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Twitter were thinking of setting a European outlet based in London

I expect that decision will now be reviewed and those jobs will go to some other country

Yet another triumph for Premier league parasites who grow fat while the rest of the UK economy withers

I hope all their clubs go bust and they wind up kicking a ball about on the local park.

Well, if the proles will continue to pay good money to watch a bunch of fairies playing a kids' game, what do you expect?

Anyway, I assume this is the footballer who most certainly isn't R*an G*ggs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect British Law is about to show how powerless it is in the corporate run world, the only result being that more UK based organisations rellocate outside of the UK to put themselves above UK law.

If this footballer wishes to sue a US based interent firm he has to do so in the US where he would be obliged to make his identity public - thereby defeating the purpose of why he is suing.

I personally think, IMPO, that the vanity of such people is only detrimental to UK Law and the UK as a whole when it is shown how powerless we are.

I can't figure out whether, IMPO, he is about to become the most ridiculed or most loathed person in the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect British Law is about to show how powerless it is in the corporate run world, the only result being that more UK based organisations rellocate outside of the UK to put themselves above UK law.

If this footballer wishes to sue a US based interent firm he has to do so in the US where he would be obliged to make his identity public - thereby defeating the purpose of why he is suing.

I personally think, IMPO, that the vanity of such people is only detrimental to UK Law and the UK as a whole when it is shown how powerless we are.

I can't figure out whether, IMPO, he is about to become the most ridiculed or most loathed person in the country?

Apparently it's not exactly going to plan.....

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/article/48429/

I don't think many of the 'establishment' have really got to grip with the world of the internet, yet. This can only make internet censorship more inevitable, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the courts force UK ISPs to block twitter?

Actually, I'd love this to happen. It could wake a lot of people up and to be honest, I think loss of twitter would hardly be much of a price to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the courts force UK ISPs to block twitter?

What would be the point.

It would be a bit like banning paper and envelopes because people write poison pen letters.

There are over 360,000 hits on Google relating to the 'not to be named footballer' and his bit on the side. Only a fraction relates to Twitter. This is not even to mention the fact that the individual has been named in the Spanish and US media as well.

I suppose Google and Bing might be lent on to restrict UK searches but it would be childs play to spoof yourself to a search site outside the UK. In addition the restriction would mean our footballing hero would essentially disappear himself from Google search in his entirety as it would be near impossible to just cut out the stories purely relating to the sex scandal.This would mean that any games in which he played would vanish from Googles sports list. In itself this would make the identity of the person known. It would not do much for his wider marketing value either as he would essentially be a digital pariah. In fact the only way that the judges and the UK law can stop aforesaid shagging cheating scumbag footballer activities becoming known is to sever all connections between the UK and the wider internet. That would concentrate the mind of all those British companies that have spent so much time offshoring their IT in recent years.

The truth is that if you make a living and profit by your public name then you are never going to enjoy the same level of privacy as other individuals. Celebs who want the fame and the money but dont like the prying eyes of the media have not really chosen the correct profession. The two are inextricably linked and the law needs to recognise that fact.

Moreover the privacy legislation law is entirely contradictory in the way it tries to protect the innocent parties in the marriage who are also impacted by the story . The actual act of getting married takes place in public in front of officials and witnesses. The children from marriage our always registered publically and their existence is often recognised by other ceremonies. Given that people acquiese to all the prying when they first become formally conjoined and when they produce offspring why on earth should they expect it to be different when their relationship starts to come unstuck. The reality is that no one enjoys complete privacy in their personal affairs and the higher a persons public profile the more likely and widely any personal indiscretions are going to become known. The law and judiciary can not change this fact no matter what draconian measures they try to adopt so it would be saner and better if they simply gave up now and looked for a more workable solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone initiated the intentional release of information in contempt of court.

If that was via a twitter account or any other mechanism doesn't seem to matter very much. It would appear that Twitter are being asked to divulge the initial source of the information and since their policies require that Twitters don't break local laws it seems likely they will reveal those details.

I'd have thought that was perfectly sensible. In all likelihood it will be someone connected to the usual suspects in the media who would be out of business without this sort of sh1te to feed off.

This isn't about personal freedoms, it's about corporate profits and certain newspaper proprietors in particular.

It's all being carefully orchestrated by the usual suspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the point.

It would be a bit like banning paper and envelopes because people write poison pen letters.

There are over 360,000 hits on Google relating to the 'not to be named footballer' and his bit on the side. Only a fraction relates to Twitter. This is not even to mention the fact that the individual has been named in the Spanish and US media as well.

I suppose Google and Bing might be lent on to restrict UK searches but it would be childs play to spoof yourself to a search site outside the UK. In addition the restriction would mean our footballing hero would essentially disappear himself from Google search in his entirety as it would be near impossible to just cut out the stories purely relating to the sex scandal.This would mean that any games in which he played would vanish from Googles sports list. In itself this would make the identity of the person known. It would not do much for his wider marketing value either as he would essentially be a digital pariah. In fact the only way that the judges and the UK law can stop aforesaid shagging cheating scumbag footballer activities becoming known is to sever all connections between the UK and the wider internet. That would concentrate the mind of all those British companies that have spent so much time offshoring their IT in recent years.

The truth is that if you make a living and profit by your public name then you are never going to enjoy the same level of privacy as other individuals. Celebs who want the fame and the money but dont like the prying eyes of the media have not really chosen the correct profession. The two are inextricably linked and the law needs to recognise that fact.

Moreover the privacy legislation law is entirely contradictory in the way it tries to protect the innocent parties in the marriage who are also impacted by the story . The actual act of getting married takes place in public in front of officials and witnesses. The children from marriage our always registered publically and their existence is often recognised by other ceremonies. Given that people acquiese to all the prying when they first become formally conjoined and when they produce offspring why on earth should they expect it to be different when their relationship starts to come unstuck. The reality is that no one enjoys complete privacy in their personal affairs and the higher a persons public profile the more likely and widely any personal indiscretions are going to become known. The law and judiciary can not change this fact no matter what draconian measures they try to adopt so it would be saner and better if they simply gave up now and looked for a more workable solution.

Indeed, however, the way that the higher echelons of our society no real idea how much of "these things" work, they'll think "we'll we'll remove one site and it will all go away"... MPs, Judges what have you have no real idea how technology works...Just look at when they brought in the Digital Economy Bill last year...It'll be broken within about 3 seconds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure I just made a post with absolutely no link to any person at all. So no reason why it has suddenly disappeared. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone initiated the intentional release of information in contempt of court.

If that was via a twitter account or any other mechanism doesn't seem to matter very much. It would appear that Twitter are being asked to divulge the initial source of the information and since their policies require that Twitters don't break local laws it seems likely they will reveal those details.

I'd have thought that was perfectly sensible. In all likelihood it will be someone connected to the usual suspects in the media who would be out of business without this sort of sh1te to feed off.

This isn't about personal freedoms, it's about corporate profits and certain newspaper proprietors in particular.

It's all being carefully orchestrated by the usual suspects.

The reality is that they can only be in contempt of court if the person who tweeted the information initiated the process in the UK. I suspect it may well have originated away from our shores as the media group behind it are probaby an international conglomerate using a foreign intermediary. It is therefore highly likely no local laws were violated as the public revelation of adultery may not be an issue in the jurisdiction concerned. Foreign judges are almost certainly not going to enforce the fantasy claims to omnipotence of the UK judiciary.

The key point is that very attempt to enforce judgement is invoking the Steisand Syndrome whereby an attempt to restrict access to information on the Internet only causes it to spread. Once upon a time this sort of tittle tattle would have been confined to the tabloids, celeb gossip sites and football forums. The attempt to use the law to enforce silence has resulted in it now being taken up on wider discussion boards across the Internet which would normally have zero interest in the shagging habits of our Premier League chums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Striesand effect' is taking effect with full force over on twitter.

The problem with these little twitter campaigns is that practically none of the people involved have any idea if they are actually tweeting the name of the right person. They probably have in this case, but one day the mob will get it wrong.

I guess what Im saying is that before we start treating twitter like some kind of credible journalistic source they need to start acting like one (and quoting sources etc)

Until that happens Twitter is really not much different to graffiti on a bathroom wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it's not exactly going to plan.....

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/article/48429/

I don't think many of the 'establishment' have really got to grip with the world of the internet, yet. This can only make internet censorship more inevitable, sadly.

If the idea is to reveal the names of everyone who's tweeted his name, do they really think the UK govt would actually allow the courts to be clogged up with say 20,000 in a contempt of court case? I think Cameron would order the Home Office to dismiss it as a waste of public funds.

Or does the Prem league a$$ actually think he'll get 20,000 people jailed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the idea is to reveal the names of everyone who's tweeted his name, do they really think the UK govt would actually allow the courts to be clogged up with say 20,000 in a contempt of court case? I think Cameron would order the Home Office to dismiss it as a waste of public funds.

Or does the Prem league a$$ actually think he'll get 20,000 people jailed?

I think he wants to go after "the few" that started it all...his action will fail and be made to look an even bigger tool..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Striesand effect' is taking effect with full force over on twitter.

The problem with these little twitter campaigns is that practically none of the people involved have any idea if they are actually tweeting the name of the right person. They probably have in this case, but one day the mob will get it wrong.

I guess what Im saying is that before we start treating twitter like some kind of credible journalistic source they need to start acting like one (and quoting sources etc)

Until that happens Twitter is really not much different to graffiti on a bathroom wall.

This is pretty much the point Max Clifford was making and why he thought the attempt to suppress these types of tweets was so ill advised.

Twitter rumours are by and large low impact events in the media world because most people take them with a huge pinch of saIt . It is only when people try to suppress them that people start to take the contents seriously.

In addition the effect runs far beyond twitter. I have seen the 'not to be named footballer' indentified on numerous US media sites, in a Spanish newspaper and on countless forums both in the UK and overseas. The more he tries to suppress the story the wider it circulates. If he had just let it run its course through the tabloids it would have been dead and buried by now not being discussed by Americans and others who have not got the faintest idea who are the parties involved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have seen the 'not to be named footballer' indentified on numerous US media sites, in a Spanish newspaper

Just suppose, say, the player in question was to play against a Spanish team. If the Spanish supporters, having read the Spanish newspaper, were to display banners in Spanish (or English), mocking the player in question, or to chant information relevant to the injunction, or just shout `tweet tweet' when he has the ball - what could be done? Would the UK TV ignore it like they do racist chanting, swearing players or streakers? Would Justic Eady come over the PA system to warn them to desist?

I believe the player allegedly involved has already missed at least one high profile match on live TV - he is starting to look ridiculous to everyone but the lawyers to whom he is paying lots of money.

Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just suppose, say, the player in question was to play against a Spanish team. If the Spanish supporters, having read the Spanish newspaper, were to display banners in Spanish (or English), mocking the player in question, or to chant information relevant to the injunction, or just shout `tweet tweet' when he has the ball - what could be done? Would the UK TV ignore it like they do racist chanting, swearing players or streakers? Would Justic Eady come over the PA system to warn them to desist?

I believe the player allegedly involved has already missed at least one high profile match on live TV - he is starting to look ridiculous to everyone but the lawyers to whom he is paying lots of money.

Y

If the game was played in this country, then I suppose those spanish fans could be arrested...Those crazy spanish fans up to their high jinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.