Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
Delete me please
Last edited:
Twitter again...Tweety bird go bye bye..
- Thread starter Surfer
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 5,038
Well it's a tricky really, if something is typed here in the UK but is hosted in the US where is the jurisdiction? Also conflicts in law etc.
Me personally I feel people should be able to say what they like without the fear of being sued or prison. But on the other hand mud can and does stick. Honestly I haven't got a complete developed opinion but I lean more on the libertarian side of things.
Twitter is a US company so for a US court to grant the request to hand over user details then a US law would have to have been broken.
I just find it easier to treat online as just as real as offline. Twitter, Facebook, blogs etc are pretty much the equivilant of shouting in a public space or publishing a newspaper in a public forum. The same laws should really apply. Otherwise you effectively have an avenue for people to utterly ruin someones reputation and in some cases life with zero comeback.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,533
- Location
- UK
If it's a UK individual, residing in the UK, making defamatory remarks against a UK organisation, surely UK law should apply?
If it's a UK individual, residing in the UK, making defamatory remarks against a UK organisation, surely UK law should apply?
It does, but UK law can't force a US company to give up information.
If it's a UK individual, residing in the UK, making defamatory remarks against a UK organisation, surely UK law should apply?
Which US law is broken?
Hrmm...so why did Twitter hand over the user details?
I don't think the current libel laws that are in place regarding print and publishing should be applied to the internet.
However, I feel that the current defamation laws regarding what you say in public or in private conversation are woefully inadequate and no longer fit for purpose if we try to apply them to the internet.
On the one hand, using the current print/broadcast defamation laws and applying them to the internet are a bit too harsh, because it could effectively lead to the loss of free speech as there is no context. If, for example, I reply to someone on twitter directly and don't mention that it's my opinion, then someone could potentially see that as libelous and take action. I think that'd be unfair.
But on the other hand, if people are placed in a situation as highlighted in the OP then is it Ok to say "That's just opinion, there's no fact there." even though it's damaging to a persons character?
It's not as cut and dry as it is in broadcast or print. We shouldn't need to use a disclaimer every time we say or post something online. The law needs to be amended to take into account the internet.
However, I feel that the current defamation laws regarding what you say in public or in private conversation are woefully inadequate and no longer fit for purpose if we try to apply them to the internet.
On the one hand, using the current print/broadcast defamation laws and applying them to the internet are a bit too harsh, because it could effectively lead to the loss of free speech as there is no context. If, for example, I reply to someone on twitter directly and don't mention that it's my opinion, then someone could potentially see that as libelous and take action. I think that'd be unfair.
But on the other hand, if people are placed in a situation as highlighted in the OP then is it Ok to say "That's just opinion, there's no fact there." even though it's damaging to a persons character?
It's not as cut and dry as it is in broadcast or print. We shouldn't need to use a disclaimer every time we say or post something online. The law needs to be amended to take into account the internet.
I wondered this too regarding injunctions.
Supposed you found out something and posted it on a site like twitter only to find out later that you weren't allowed to post it due to a court injunction.
How could one not use the ignorance rule in this case. Unless the court could provide proof that you knew about the injunction (ie editor of a newspaper etc.)
I understand that some tweets etc. contain malicious lies but suppose you were telling the truth?
Supposed you found out something and posted it on a site like twitter only to find out later that you weren't allowed to post it due to a court injunction.
How could one not use the ignorance rule in this case. Unless the court could provide proof that you knew about the injunction (ie editor of a newspaper etc.)
I understand that some tweets etc. contain malicious lies but suppose you were telling the truth?
Quite possibly US libel laws, or similar.
Why do people think that the normal laws shouldn't apply on the internet?
More to the point, why are they attacking Twitter for being better than companies like Google and Facebook who do not notify when they hand over data?
More to the point, why are they attacking Twitter for being better than companies like Google and Facebook who do not notify when they hand over data?
that's not slander.
Vonhelmet said:
You yourself said its not libel if its true.
Secondly, all the relevant uhh "incriminating" parties are based in the UK. So US law has nothing to do with it? (i am quite possibly wrong here though
)Some people will see this Ahmed Khaan chap as a whistleblower and the council are trying to keep him quiet.
Some will see him as a nutter who has a dedicated hate campaign against a number of council members. (presumably he is holding a grudge)
If his claims of corruption and so forth did hold water why didnt he go to the british press?? (if he was unable to get anywhere internally)
Depends on how elequent i am and how much thought and effort i put into it to be honest
If i dedicate a website to slagging him off continually is that slanderous?
Some people on here...are seeing this in black and white when really its much more complex. (shades of grey)
You yourself said its not libel if its true.
Secondly, all the relevant uhh "incriminating" parties are based in the UK. So US law has nothing to do with it? (i am quite possibly wrong here though
Twitter is a US service with US servers so technically the offense has been commited in the US.
Which a court of law can decide, but it can only decide that if the anonymous twitter user can be proven to be Ahmed Khaan. For that you need to apply for a court order to get at the user details.
Good question, or more improtantly, why not go to the police?
You yourself said its not libel if its true.
Secondly, all the relevant uhh "incriminating" parties are based in the UK. So US law has nothing to do with it? (i am quite possibly wrong here though
Some people will see this Ahmed Khaan chap as a whistleblower and the council are trying to keep him quiet.
Some will see him as a nutter who has a dedicated hate campaign against a number of council members. (presumably he is holding a grudge)
If his claims of corruption and so forth did hold water why didnt he go to the british press?? (if he was unable to get anywhere internally)
We can't know if it's true until it's investigated, which is why they've handed over the data - to further the investigation.
And it can have something to do with US law if the messages etc are broadcast via a US service.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,533
- Location
- UK
You seem to be conflating:
a) A subpoena being issued to a service provider (in this case Twitter) such that the identity of a user can be determined and a libel case brought against them (whether or not they are guilty, of course, being decided by a court);
b) A person being convicted of making libellous remarks.
As it stands, only (a) has occurred, yet you seem to think it is some grave injustice?