Earlier this month, an anonymous Twitter user posted six Tweets naming six UK celebrities who, the Tweets alleged, had acquired “super-injunctions” preventing the publication of details of their private lives. Those details were, of course, mentioned in the Tweets.
Super-injunctions are so called because they not only ban publication of the information, but also make it illegal to report the existence of the injunction itself. Intended to protect innocent individuals from malicious action, they are notoriously used by wealthy celebrities to prevent damaging revelations about their private lives.
Within hours the Tweets, naming two top footballers, a celebrity chef, and a TV presenter, had gone viral. Within 24 hours they had 60,000 followers and by the next day had spread onto Facebook. Of course, the original Tweet and any republication of it are technically illegal, inviting contempt-of-court charges from the UK court that issued the super-injunction.
That is, if anyone can identify the original Tweeter.
As Twitter is US-based, a UK court would have to ask its US equivalent to make Twitter divulge the information, which is unlikely to be anything more than an email address and an Internet cafe IP address. This is not likely to happen.
But while the celebrity dirt is now known by millions of people, the mainstream media still cannot publish it, in print or online, without risking a contempt-of-court charge. In the agrammatical words of Jeremy Hunt, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media, and Sport, "technology and Twitter is making a mockery of the privacy laws that we have."
A headline in the print edition of the London Times (owned by Rupert Murdoch) was stark: "Judges humiliated by one little tweet." There is consternation in high places. Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed his concern, stressing that there is a strong feeling in Parliament that the law should veer toward freedom of expression over privacy.
It has been suggested that these Tweets are not the work of a disgruntled individual, but of a media organization, and one perhaps with a definite agenda. Charlotte Harris, a partner at lawyers Mishcon de Reya, representing one of the named celebrities, reportedly said: "There's no way I'm going to sue any Twitter user rather than a newspaper, I don't want to do anything heavy-handed. The media organisation that allowed that leak is going to be exposed."
The evidence suggests that Ms. Harris may be right. How did the Tweeter know about these five injunctions? Simple: All media organizations are informed of super-injunctions by the courts to enable them to avoid accidental publication of banned material.
The timing is also interesting. Last week, the UK’s most senior judge, Lord Neuberger, published a report on super-injunctions, meant to clarify principles and procedures governing injunctions and to reduce controversy.
The other suggestive factor is the inclusion in the Tweets of a fake story about a non-existent injunction supposed to have been taken out by Jemima Khan, socialite and ex-wife of Pakistani cricketer and politician Imran Khan. This gave print and broadcast editors a celebrity peg on which to hang a story otherwise devoid of anything legally printable. (Most articles in the press have appeared under photographs of Jemima Khan.)
The Tweeter wanted the story to get into the mainstream media, and the plant was a stroke of genius, probably by someone familiar with the way news editors think.
While the Tweets could not have influenced Lord Neuberger's report, they have certainly manipulated the reaction to it and the atmosphere in which it is received, which is strongly in favor of greater freedom of expression and reporting -- and potential limitation of the right to privacy.
If there is a media organization behind these Tweets, it may be getting what it wants. Lord Neuberger's report urges stricter qualification and supervision of injunctions. He also suggested that the media be allowed access to injunction proceedings.
The government has also, unexpectedly, announced that it is not going to legislate to strengthen privacy protection.
Now, what media organization is smiled upon by the UK government and Prime Minister David Cameron in particular?
— George Taylor worked in IT in both public and private sectors for over 20 years. He is a Subject of the Crown.
Email This
