Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
would it be against the law to post in it?
but as much as he's looking to lash out at everyone (likelihood of twitter abiding by disclosure order = slim to none) to cover up for his own CHEATING ON HIS WIFE AND KIDS; the odds of suing someone on middling internet messageboard drownedinsound are pretty low, i'd say
if he's caught out playing lego or something with his mistress' kids. Has that happened?
about cheating on kids
It’s the person who first posted the information that he’s after. He’s not actually suing twitter, rather he wants the name of the journalist that leaked his name.
and i somehow doubt twitter will disclose
"Daddy, how could you sleep with someone else other than us?"
But the author, publisher, and distributor could all be liable (so the poster and sean, potentially).
If the Herald had sold one copy south of the border, they would have been liable.
With web stuff, the law is yet to be fully tested I imagine. Twitter will claim the fact they are an American company as a defence, with British laws not applaying to them. DiS is, I assume, a predominantly England-based website, so even if the poster was from Scotland, you could argue the publication was in England.
Libel tourism focusess around this, Americans can sue other Americans over something written in an American magazine in a UK court, as long as it sells one copy in Basingstoke. It's slightly ridiculous.
But in practical terms, yeah, it's a freaking joke.
(people like shop owners and printers can claim a reasonable defence that they have no control over what's printed which gets them out of it). I guess sean could use the same defence - he can't police what is posted. But since he can, and does (with moderators who are meant to remove offensive/illegal material etc) then in theory he should be responsible for this sort of thing as well.
I am above your laws
for talking about it on twitter. lol.
I know we all realised that someone could go to prison for violating the terms of one of these injunctions, but it would really be a sad day if it actually happened. By all means, fine them - financially ruin them - but to make it a crime to reveal somebody had an affair is absolutely disgusting, especially if they did it in their capacity as an individual on a social networking site.
actually sentence an offender to prison time? Is it any more likely than a criminal charge for libel, for example?
There's a much wider issue of privacy vs public interest at stake.
And I'm sure if the fact it was on Twitter or Facebook or in a paper really matters. Perhaps it's a good thing that the wilder reaches of the internet are forced to accept some responsibility and regulation.
I don't see what relevance the issue of public interest has when it comes to social networking sites. In fact I'm not sure what relevance it has to the issue of prison time in general. "It was in the public interest" is reasonable justification for violating the terms of an injunction (or reasonable justification for not granting an injunction in the first place, as is more likely to be the case), but if you can't make such a defence, I don't see why the consequence should ever be jail time. Is it simply that a fine would not be a strong enough deterrent for a national newspaper?
There was an article (written by Roy Greenslade, I think), which looked at the economics involved in the payments to the McCanns by various papers. Despite the size of the fines, it was suggested that the lawyers, financial guys and the editors had done the maths and reasoned that they would get improved sales and advertising by publishing the stories, to the extent that any likely fine or payment would still leave them, on balance, in profit for the stories.
To time for making the 'public interest' case should be made in front of a judge, at the injunction hearing, not afterwards in the public domain.
I'd kind of assumed that, and was asking if that was the only reason prison time came into play or (implicitly) if it had some moral justification. With regard to the second, I'm not sure what relevance it has to what I said.
‘It was in the public interest’ is grounds for breaking an injunction. Well, not legally, it isn’t. It’s grounds for seeking to overturn an injunction, or for preventing one being put in place in the first place, but, however unjustifiable the basis of the injunction might be, it doesn’t justify publishing a story to deliberately make it redundant.
I don’t agree with a lot of these injunctions (especially when it comes to things like Trifagura, and the fact that only the most wealthy party sees to be able to secure them), but I can understand that in certain circumstances they are necessary. And, on the whole, so do the press. We’ve only heard about the ones that they disagree with. There are lots and lots of instances where reporting restrictions are put in place via the route of injunctions, but they aren’t broken.
It’s good that the legal system is challenged by the press, but it is pretty worrying to see it by-passed in a selective manner, based upon the prejudices and agendas of individual newspaper proprietors, editors and readers. I also don’t like how this issue is being used by certain newspapers to try and take the higher ground after they were embroiled in illegal activities such as phone-hacking and paying police officers.
Your informed analysis of UK law is always welcomed, however.
But it is the "twitter mob" that's pushing this as hard as anyone. They're treating it like a joke, flouting the law, repeating the name, changing their pictures - but why? As a fuck you to the rich and powerful? Because it's funny to be naughty? The irony is, it's probably the same kind of crowd that, if the affair story had been run in NOTW, would tut and say "why is it in the public interest for us to know what he does in his private life?"
Also, you accuse the press of bypassing the injunctions, presumably by spreading the information, but this could come from a dozen sources - the footballer's families, Imogen Thomas, the legal teams, friends of friends of friends. Gossip travels.
I struggle to get my head round all the implications of all this nonsense, but basically it's one big mess.
Everyone knows it.
I find it interesting how ‘old media’ are getting all confused about whether they should welcome the idea of the web making injunctions like these pretty redundant, or whether they should panic at how the web is making newspapers, as sources of gossip, pretty redundant themselves.
It's like Queensbury Rules against a street brawler. Queensbury thinks the other dude is being a douche, but only because he's jealous of the fact that the douche can whack people in the nads and he can't.
and columnists like Jan Moir hiding behind the ‘fair comment’ defence to publish lies and speculation, would be funny, if it hadn’t ruined people’s lives.
Ah well, today's news, tomorrow's fish and chips.
Except you can't wrap a cod in Twitter, can you? Think about that.
Whereas everything online is considered scurrilous gossip and can therefore be allowed to continue with impudence because who gives a shit, it's just an online rumour.
But I don't think any of this is true nowadays, and a rumour spread online can have as much credence and popular opinion behind it as anything in a paper, which people profess not to believe anyway.
It's impossible to police the web for things like libel or breaching these injunctions, I'm sure. But I don't know if that's a good thing.
Perhaps it's just professional jealousy.
I mean, this is at the root of a lot of legal debate with the web from Napster to the twitter joke trial... it's just that now it's journalism's turn to come up against it
It's clear that the virtual world cannot be policed in the same way as the real world without restricting it or strangling its potential
But it does leave us in some bloody daft situations, like we are now.
Let it boil down to what Fleet Street Fox said: Dear celebrities, if you don't want to public to think you're a cunt, don't act like a cunt.
along with the caption along the lines of: "We don't usually see much of Giggs's wife, but she looked stunning at this awards dinner. What a shame Ryan seems to be forcing that smile! I for one would like to hear much more about their happy marriage."
And on Friday, the Star ran a half-clever front page with a pic of Giggs and his wife and the headline Ryan's Red Devil (Ryan has a red devil? Ryan IS a red devil?) above a picture of Imogen Thomas and a story about injunctions.
All unconnected, I'm sure.
also, in one article, one of the mail columnists wrote something about hugh bonneville being the ryan giggs of acting world (or possibly the other way round). it had to be taken down.
what a lovely smile on the face of Rooney holding his son! - paula, norfolk uk, 23/5/2011 10:00 Pity he didnt stop to think of his son when he was playing around !
- Cathy, Liverpool, 23/5/2011 10:37
Click to rate Rating 45
rooney did have an affair (or more than one idk)...
his using prostitutes was in the public domain when he made a public apology and so on (it didn't have any injunction on it at least).
i thought they were talking about rooney holding another player's son. just, you know, ignore that previous post.
despite him being on Doctor Who and Downton Abbey coming out on DVD. He said something like: "I haven't seen him doing any public appearances or slots on chatshows. His publiscist must be the worst in the business. Or perhaps I'm missing something?"
He owns everything we post on here, remember?
but the law specifically says that claimants in libel cases can pursue writers, editors, printers, owners, and even shops that sell the paper (though they usally don't).
In real terms, the paper usually fights or settles the case on behalf of the reporter, since the reporter could never afford it and the paper usually sees it as a duty to stand by their writers. Then if they lose, the writer gets fired and will struggle to ever find a job again.
Now, it's not damamging to someone's reputation to say they're gay (perhaps if they were a Catholic priest or something), but the case was built on the fact the Donovan denied it, therefore Face were implying that he was a liar, and to allege that he was being dishonest to his fans WAS a genuine slur on his character. He won. The big gay.
he would have loved that
Surely nowadays Rusking could claim a fair comment defence? I'm sure people in the Daily Mail have said much worse about Tracy Emin and Damian Hurst than that they're a coxcomb.
Steff is probably right.
I need Twitter to promote me giggs
to stop people talking about the fact that he was named, by an MP, in the House of Commons, as the person at the centre of all this?
but I don't think so. In fact, pretty sure he went back to the High Court yesterday and and successfully fought off attempts to have the injunction rescinded. The MP was allowed to name in parliament but he technically still cannot be named by the press/media. According to this morning's Metro, this is the first time the press have reported on an MP revealing who has a super injunction, so I guess it could become a bit of a test case.