Yesterday we heard that following a court ruling in California, Twitter has released full details of one of some Twitter accounts to lawyers in the UK. This includes names, addresses, telephone numbers etc. The lawyers have argued that these accounts were putting out libellous posts about members of a local council in the UK.
There are a few worrying aspects to this which I believe will change our perception of Twitter - not for the better.
- who decides what is libellous in a case like this?
- would Twitter be just as malleable towards a repressive foreign government seeking information on dissidents?
- what protects the information of other Twitter users who corresponded with these accounts about other matters?
- defendant was offered the chance to fight, but as this involved flying to and staying in the US and hiring a lawyer, he could not afford to fight the action. So, what protection does Twitter offer to less wealthy users? Do they only have the backs of the rich?
From a UK tax paying point of view, I am interested to know where the money came from to defend the names of the councillors named in these Tweets. As far as I understand it you can’t libel a council, only individuals. So, I really hope that these individuals paid for this legal action themselves. If not, then surely the taxpayers of that area are bound to feel very angry that while they are facing cuts in services and hardship, their money is being used for this purpose.
The really amusing thing is that prior to this judgement I had never heard of any of these people, or their alleged wrongdoings, now, the whole Twitterverse knows who they are! Hmm
Obviously, it must be very upsetting if people make untrue comments about you on Twitter or anywhere else, but isn’t this really a bit like
‘a man down the pub said’?
Not everyone will believe the man down the pub, and anyway, least said, soonest forgotten…
