Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Twitter users and the courts go to war over footballer's injunction

Discussion in 'Tech, Gadgets & Science Forum' started by Rutashubanyuma, May 21, 2011.

  1. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #1
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Twitter users and the courts go to war over footballer's injunction

    Social networks accused of making 'an ass of the law' as injunction spirals into online battle over freedom of speech



    • Owen Bowcott and Josh Halliday
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 20.26 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] As Twitter users repeatedly named a footballer who has taken out a privacy injunction, Lord Judge warned that 'modern technology was totally out of control'. Photograph: Ian Nicholson/PA

      Attempts to identify a famous footballer hiding behind a privacy injunction have spiralled into an online battle over freedom of speech, as internet users responded to high court action by repeatedly naming him on Twitter.
      The high court granted a search order against the US-based microblogging site on Friday as the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, warned that "modern technology was totally out of control" and called for those who "peddle lies" on the internet to be fined. The attempt to compel Twitter to identify those responsible for the breaches comes after a number of its users earlier this month purported to reveal the name of the player who allegedly had an affair with the model Imogen Thomas.
      The footballer's legal team began its action in London on Wednesday. There is a suspicion that a media company may be linked to the postings on Twitter, which were put up nearly two weeks ago.
      But the name of the footballer was spreading even more rapidly across Twitter in defiance of the court injunction, setting the stage for a confrontation between the judiciary and cyberspace.
      Earlier Lord Judge – welcoming a juridical report on superinjunctions – said readers placed greater trust in the content of traditional media than those "who peddle lies" on websites.
      He urged that ways be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology", in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police.
      "Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?" he asked.
      The lawsuit lists the defendants as "Twitter Inc and persons unknown".
      The "persons unknown" are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts".
      Lawyers have applied for a court order that could force Twitter to hand over the name, email address and IP address of the person behind the account, the Guardian understands.
      The orders – known as a Norwich Pharmacal orders – are commonly used in illegal filesharing cases.
      The Guardian understands that the claim form, filed to the high court by the footballer's legal team, will not be made public until next week. Earlier this month, an unknown person or individuals published on a Twitter account the names of various people who had allegedly taken out gagging orders to conceal sexual indiscretions.
      The account rapidly attracted more than 100,000 followers.
      Twitter said: "We are unable to comment." The London-based law firm representing the footballer had also not responded to a request for comment at time of publication.
      Twitter and other social networks were accused of making "an ass of the law" by the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and politicians after a number of celebrities with injunctions were allegedly exposed online.
      The socialite Jemima Khan was among those alleged on Twitter to have obtained an injunction.
      Khan described as a "bloody nightmare" rumours suggesting falsely that she had obtained a gagging order to prevent publication of "intimate photos" of herself and the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson.
      Twitter has in the past said that it "strive not to remove tweets on the basis of their content", but that it would remove "illegal tweets and spam".
      Previous defamation claims against the search engine Google failed on the grounds that it is not a publisher and not responsible for the contents of the blogs and articles listed in its search results.
      Richard Hillgrove, the owner of Hillgrove PR, which provides advice to celebrities, said that Twitter needed to be made as accountable as any other medium.
      "It has gone from 'the back bedroom' to mainstream medium.
      "Celebrities are being held to account if they Tweet commercial interests. It works both ways," he said.
      Challenge to media, page 4


     
  2. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #2
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Twitter and the mystery footballer

    Speculation about identity of player was was allegedly involved with Imogen Thomas is rife on Twitter


    • [​IMG]
    • This isn't a long post, just a graph really. I can't name the footballer who allegedly had an affair with model Imogen Thomas. But I can publish this graph. It gives you an idea of the spike in Twitter mentions of said footballer's surname on the social media site in the late afternoon after it emerged that his legal team had launched an action against Twitter to try and restrain mentions of his name online. You can decide if it worked.
      [​IMG] That's a big spike. Left axis is number of mentions; right axis time today. Source: Trendistic
     
  3. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #3
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Injunctions, Twitter and the law

    So, can the courts stop all this injunction-busting chat on Twitter? And can tweeters be made liable?

    [​IMG] They use Twitter, but can anybody injunct them?

    One law for the tabloids; one law for the rest of us. The thinking is familiar, but this time the law, has in effect, been turned on its head. The current spate of gagging orders mean that tabloid newspapers can't reveal which famous people slept with which &#8211; but you can read all about it on Twitter. And once it's up there, in all its 140-character court-defying glory, it can't be taken away, even as in the case of Jemima Khan, the stories are all wrong.
    Can anybody stop supposedly secret details about the injunctions spreading?

    At first glance, it appears not. Twitter says it is not a publisher; it is piece of software, its terms of service say: "By submitting, posting or displaying content on or through the services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence". Or to put it another way - don't blame us for this - they are the unedited words of the author.
    Now, that point has not yet been tested in a UK court &#8211; but the closest analogous case appears helpful to Twitter. A 2009 ruling, Metropolitan International Schools v Designtechnica and Google, where Mr Justice Eady held that a search engine was not a publisher under common law. The result of that case was that Google could not be held liable when it came to defamation because it had not published the material that appeared on its website.
    There's part of this that is faintly annoying. Twitter, after all, wants to make to make money from your tweets by selling advertising. The company operates a privacy policy where you can "report privacy violations" and "harassment", although its list of violations include things like "credit card information" rather than "he said I shagged him when I didn't". Twitter shows no sign of trying to get anybody to comply with its privacy code (what would happen if Khan tried?). But, despite all these niggles, that's where the law probably lies; Twitter is not a publisher.
    Twitter, also has obvious legal advantages, because it is based in California and has little to no legal presence here. A court could try to serve it with one of the injunctions. Except, from a quick glance at Companies House, there is no UK company to serve it on. The servers probably aren't in the UK; nether are any meaningful assets, or a lot of employees (even trying to get any answers out of Twitter for us journalists seems to be nigh on impossible, but one lives in hope).
    Interestingly, by the way, even in the Google case referred to above, it emerged that you couldn't meaningfully serve a libel writ on Google UK Ltd, despite its staff and large headquarters in Victoria, London. That's because it could not be held to have any control over the search engine, which is run out of the US by another legal entity, parent company Google Inc.
    Of course, since 1776 (arguably) and 1783 (definitely) the US, its citizens and companies, have been able to ignore the rulings of the UK courts, on account of being a separate country. That sort of thinking underlied the US Speech Act &#8211; in effect a statement by the US that it was not prepared to see its publications bound by often draconian judgements of the British libel courts. Bear in mind, though, the Speech Act does not apply when it comes to injunctions.
    Clearly, real life is a bit more subtle than this, but if a company (like Twitter) has no particular assets or directors in the UK, then it has relatively little to risk by ignoring an injunction from this country. British courts are usually mindful of this and are cautious about making orders that will make them look powerless.
    That's why it was surprising that Mr Justice Tugendhat allowed Louis Bacon, a hedge fund manager, to use the British courts to serve an order (not an injunction &#8211; more on this shortly) on the Denver Post, Wikipedia and the company that hosts the WordPress blog site, Automattic. We shall see if the three who have been served choose to comply with Bacon's request. But the Bacon case is interesting in the context of wilfully broken injunctions for another reason.
    If Twitter can duck all legal liability, it is certainly not the case that the authors of tweets that bust injunctions can. Any newspaper journalist revealing the identity of married footballers/actors/TV presenters is almost certainly at risk of contempt of court, for which the punishment is good old-fashioned jail. That's because the journalists' newspapers have been notified of the existence of the injunctions.
    Any member of the public who can clearly be identified may well be at risk too, although it might be possible to plead ignorance until you were notified. But given that most people are deliberately breaking the injunction, that defence doesn't really cut it. Of course, anonymous tweeters are a different category &#8211; the source of the latest flurry of injunction chat on Twitter comes from an unidentified user. But &#8211; again &#8211; being anonymous may not last.
    As Twitter itself says: "We may disclose your information if we believe that it is reasonably necessary to comply with a law, regulation or legal request". The Bacon judgment referred to above allowed the UK courts to demand that the three websites targeted reveal the true identity of individuals behind anonymous postings that were allegedly defamatory. If Twitter were presented with such an order, which is increasing likely in the current climate, will it comply? [Dear Twitter &#8211; answers gratefully received.]
    Mind you, it is not obvious that either the courts, or the lawyers representing the celebrities will bother. Details of the Andrew Marr story were revealed on the Guido Fawkes website long before the injunction was dropped (Guido, aka Paul Staines is careful, as I understand it, to base his site and his business offshore). Nor it is not obvious that the courts can be bothered to injunct some websites. However, Twitter is so popular that a test case seems not very far away.
    Until then, though, a curious situation has emerged. One law has emerged to gag the tabloid press from certain kiss-and-tell stories. Then the basic ("who and who?") facts emerge unsuppressed online, once information about the injunction leaks. All, then, that tabloids can do is report on the existence of the leaks, but can't print the full stories they were prepared to pay for in the first place. Twitter emerges as a winner of sorts from this battle &#8211; a battle that British tabloids usually win.
    So, if you want to sell a kiss and tell, it might be legally safer to publish it anonymously on Twitter (if you can find a buyer, that is). And as for the tabloids, if you can't get a story past an injunction, what next? Set up an anonymous site just to get the name of the married shagging celebrity out there....
     
  4. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #4
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Injunctions, Twitter and the law

    So, can the courts stop all this injunction-busting chat on Twitter? And can tweeters be made liable?

    [​IMG] They use Twitter, but can anybody injunct them?

    One law for the tabloids; one law for the rest of us. The thinking is familiar, but this time the law, has in effect, been turned on its head. The current spate of gagging orders mean that tabloid newspapers can't reveal which famous people slept with which – but you can read all about it on Twitter. And once it's up there, in all its 140-character court-defying glory, it can't be taken away, even as in the case of Jemima Khan, the stories are all wrong.
    Can anybody stop supposedly secret details about the injunctions spreading?

    At first glance, it appears not. Twitter says it is not a publisher; it is piece of software, its terms of service say: "By submitting, posting or displaying content on or through the services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence". Or to put it another way - don't blame us for this - they are the unedited words of the author.
    Now, that point has not yet been tested in a UK court – but the closest analogous case appears helpful to Twitter. A 2009 ruling, Metropolitan International Schools v Designtechnica and Google, where Mr Justice Eady held that a search engine was not a publisher under common law. The result of that case was that Google could not be held liable when it came to defamation because it had not published the material that appeared on its website.
    There's part of this that is faintly annoying. Twitter, after all, wants to make to make money from your tweets by selling advertising. The company operates a privacy policy where you can "report privacy violations" and "harassment", although its list of violations include things like "credit card information" rather than "he said I shagged him when I didn't". Twitter shows no sign of trying to get anybody to comply with its privacy code (what would happen if Khan tried?). But, despite all these niggles, that's where the law probably lies; Twitter is not a publisher.
    Twitter, also has obvious legal advantages, because it is based in California and has little to no legal presence here. A court could try to serve it with one of the injunctions. Except, from a quick glance at Companies House, there is no UK company to serve it on. The servers probably aren't in the UK; nether are any meaningful assets, or a lot of employees (even trying to get any answers out of Twitter for us journalists seems to be nigh on impossible, but one lives in hope).
    Interestingly, by the way, even in the Google case referred to above, it emerged that you couldn't meaningfully serve a libel writ on Google UK Ltd, despite its staff and large headquarters in Victoria, London. That's because it could not be held to have any control over the search engine, which is run out of the US by another legal entity, parent company Google Inc.
    Of course, since 1776 (arguably) and 1783 (definitely) the US, its citizens and companies, have been able to ignore the rulings of the UK courts, on account of being a separate country. That sort of thinking underlied the US Speech Act – in effect a statement by the US that it was not prepared to see its publications bound by often draconian judgements of the British libel courts. Bear in mind, though, the Speech Act does not apply when it comes to injunctions.
    Clearly, real life is a bit more subtle than this, but if a company (like Twitter) has no particular assets or directors in the UK, then it has relatively little to risk by ignoring an injunction from this country. British courts are usually mindful of this and are cautious about making orders that will make them look powerless.
    That's why it was surprising that Mr Justice Tugendhat allowed Louis Bacon, a hedge fund manager, to use the British courts to serve an order (not an injunction – more on this shortly) on the Denver Post, Wikipedia and the company that hosts the WordPress blog site, Automattic. We shall see if the three who have been served choose to comply with Bacon's request. But the Bacon case is interesting in the context of wilfully broken injunctions for another reason.
    If Twitter can duck all legal liability, it is certainly not the case that the authors of tweets that bust injunctions can. Any newspaper journalist revealing the identity of married footballers/actors/TV presenters is almost certainly at risk of contempt of court, for which the punishment is good old-fashioned jail. That's because the journalists' newspapers have been notified of the existence of the injunctions.
    Any member of the public who can clearly be identified may well be at risk too, although it might be possible to plead ignorance until you were notified. But given that most people are deliberately breaking the injunction, that defence doesn't really cut it. Of course, anonymous tweeters are a different category – the source of the latest flurry of injunction chat on Twitter comes from an unidentified user. But – again – being anonymous may not last.
    As Twitter itself says: "We may disclose your information if we believe that it is reasonably necessary to comply with a law, regulation or legal request". The Bacon judgment referred to above allowed the UK courts to demand that the three websites targeted reveal the true identity of individuals behind anonymous postings that were allegedly defamatory. If Twitter were presented with such an order, which is increasing likely in the current climate, will it comply? [Dear Twitter – answers gratefully received.]
    Mind you, it is not obvious that either the courts, or the lawyers representing the celebrities will bother. Details of the Andrew Marr story were revealed on the Guido Fawkes website long before the injunction was dropped (Guido, aka Paul Staines is careful, as I understand it, to base his site and his business offshore). Nor it is not obvious that the courts can be bothered to injunct some websites. However, Twitter is so popular that a test case seems not very far away.
    Until then, though, a curious situation has emerged. One law has emerged to gag the tabloid press from certain kiss-and-tell stories. Then the basic ("who and who?") facts emerge unsuppressed online, once information about the injunction leaks. All, then, that tabloids can do is report on the existence of the leaks, but can't print the full stories they were prepared to pay for in the first place. Twitter emerges as a winner of sorts from this battle – a battle that British tabloids usually win.
    So, if you want to sell a kiss and tell, it might be legally safer to publish it anonymously on Twitter (if you can find a buyer, that is). And as for the tabloids, if you can't get a story past an injunction, what next? Set up an anonymous site just to get the name of the married shagging celebrity out there....
     
  5. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #5
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Have MPs, and the media, found a way to overcome super-injunctions?


    Have the media found a neat way to circumvent the secrecy of super-injunctions through the exercise of parliamentary privilege?
    The outing of Fred Goodwin as banker in defiance of a super-injunction was neatly performed in the Commons by the Lib-Dem MP John Hemming.
    Naturally enough, it was greeted with a splash in The Sun, headlined predictably but aptly What a banker!
    It also got big front page billing in the Daily Telegraph, 'Fred the Shred' takes out gagging order and a biggish show on page 2 in later editions of the Daily Mail.
    Elsewhere, the coverage was somewhat muted, with relatively short stories in The Guardian and in The Independent.
    I had expected the Hemming statement to ignite a debate across the press this morning. But the only editorial comment was in the Financial Times, Unfree speech, which argued:
    "It says something about the tangled state of Britain's privacy laws that the country's most notorious banker has managed to obtain a super-injunction to prevent a newspaper from naming him as a banker...
    Super-injunctions, which forbid journalists from reporting that they have been granted, as well as preventing disclosure of the information that is their subject, have become increasingly popular. They are a menace to democracy and should be scrapped...
    Sections of the press have done themselves no favours by intrusive reporting of private matters whose disclosure is not in the public interest. That is regrettable.
    But it does not alter the fact that the public has a right to be able to make informed choices about those whose actions make an impact on their lives.
    Information is the life-blood of democracy. Too often, super-injunctions are a tool used to thwart this, protecting the rich and powerful by enabling them to gag the press."
    Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, noted that 30 super-injunctions "are thought to have been taken out in the past three years, with up to 300 obtained over the past two decades."
    She reports that Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, is soon to reveal new rules on super-injunctions.
    "He will have to guide courts to steer a middle course that commands media respect; or see privacy laws decided by MPs or bloggers on the internet."
    Meanwhile, will we read more about Goodwin? I understand the order is very firm indeed and that The Sun's legal arguments about public interest justification have not found favour with judges.
    Then again, there is privileged freedom of speech in the Commons, is there not?
     
  6. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #6
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Twitter sex therapist exposed

    Tweeter behind earnest yet explicit sensation Dr Peter Thraft, who prompted speculation he could be Steve Coogan, revealed



    • Ben Dowell and Vicky Frost
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 18.36 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] Tweet passion ... sex therapist Dr Peter Thraft's Twitter feed

      "Make love tonight like you mean nothing to one another. Make it hard, make it fast, make it animal. (Afterwards hug each other)," writes sex therapist Dr Peter Thraft in what is fast becoming a Twitter sensation.
      In another Twitter post the therapist implores prospective lovers: "Get to know your new partner. Spend an evening cleaning one another." Elsewhere he is more succinct: "Do not underestimate the female nipple."
      However, while the good doctor is refreshingly open in discussing sexual matters, he refuses to tolerate any rude or "negative messages" from his growing army of fans and takes great pride in blocking troublesome correspondents with the firm refrain: "You are now blocked &#8211; Dr Peter Thraft".
      The feed, which has been running since January purports to be written by the Leicester-based Thraft and the tone is one of a man who takes himself incredibly seriously, even when advising his readers that "slowly licking each other's face is an exciting way to begin foreplay". The author even goes to the lengths of carefully following leading golfers such as Paul Azinger and Nick Faldo to support his biographical premise that he is a "family man who loves golf".
      However Thraft's growing band of followers have long suspected that his feeds are the work of a professional comedian because they are so amusing &#8211; solemnly mixing observations about golf and the weather with graphic descriptions of sex and combined with a paper-thin ego.
      "The tweets are funny because Dr Peter Thraft is so fully alive and so realistic he almost could be real, and yet if he were real, he would only become funny, if at all, in very different way," writes the blogger privatematters4publicthings.
      Even a thread on the website Mumsnet asks "Am I being unreasonable to find that Peter Thraft hilarious?" One contributor describes how the posts make them "howl" and another adds: "Please don't let him be made up! On the other hand, please let him be made up!"
      Some of Thraft's more than 5,000 followers have noticed that his name resembles a rather neat if smutty amalgam of the words Thrust and Shaft and there has been speculation in comedy circles that it may be the work of Alan Partridge creator Steve Coogan.
      The Guardian contacted Coogan &#8211; who immediately denied it, before setting the newspaper on the trail another comic. He speculated that it may "sound like something [comedian] Peter Serafinowicz might do".
      But Serafinowicz also insists it is not him, along with many of the other likely suspects such as Robert Popper, the writer and producer who counts among his long list of credits the spoof TV comedies Bellamy's People and Look Around You. "Rude/sexual humour isn't my thing," he asserts.
      Eventually, though dogged persistence by the Guardian had its own reward. We can reveal that the real author is in fact David Earl, a young comedian who counts Ricky Gervais among his friends and admirers.
      Earl supported Ricky Gervais on warm up gigs for his 2009 Science tour and also made a much-praised cameo appearance in his feature film about suburban life in Reading, Cemetery Junction.
      In the film Earl played his best known character, a cafe owner called Brian Gittins with pretensions to make it big who has been described by Guardian critic Brian Logan as "anti-comedy ... the gulf between a pathetic man's ambitions and his total lack of entertainment ability".
      Gervais told the Guardian that while he doesn't Tweet and is not overly familiar with the Peter Thraft character he admires Earl enormously as "a very talented creator of characters".
      "I've been a fan for many years," he said. "He supported me as Brian Gittins, he had a nice role in Cemetery Junction and his newest creation Steve Cumberland is a beautifully observed character. Modern and original."
      Another fan of the Peter Thraft tweets is Suzi Godson, the sex therapist, journalist and author of the forthcoming book Sex Counsel. "I think it's brilliant &#8211; sex is a subject very much ripe for satire. We all need to lighten up about sex, it's taken far too seriously as this solemn thing. But domestic sex is actually pretty funny if you think about what happens underneath the average John Lewis duvet."
      However, in spite of all the praise, Earl declined to comment on his new creation and according to his press representative, he has no current ambitions yet to take his online character from the internet to the stage or TV studio in spite of Thraft's suggestion in a tweet that "three dates are now confirmed for my tour. Details to follow. Very much looking forward to meeting some of you! &#8211; Dr Peter Thraft."
      So, until Earl breaks his silence, the only word available is from his Twitter feed. Even if the advice is "slowly lick your partner's spine. From base to neck. Savour the sweat. Then kiss. Become 'one'."
      &#8226; To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
      &#8226; To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter at Twitter and Facebook at Media Guardian | Facebook

     
  7. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #7
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Police uncover evidence of hundreds more hacked phones

    True extent of investigator Glenn Mulcaire's activities only now becoming apparent as Operation Wheeting continues



    • James Robinson
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 21.00 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] Phone hacking investigation: Jude Law and his former girlfriend Sienna Miller both sued the News of the World. Miller settled out of court. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

      The Metropolitan police holds evidence that could prove hundreds of people had their phones hacked by the News of the World, Scotland Yard told the high court, a far greater number than had previously been believed.
      Barristers for the Metropolitan police said notes seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator on the paper's books, showed he made a note of 149 mobile phone pin numbers and around 400 unique voicemail numbers. Both are used to access messages left on mobile phones.
      Jason Beer QC, for the Metropolitan police, told a high court hearing the figures were: "a snap shot in time as of last week". Until Friday, the police had maintained Mulcaire kept a record of just 91 pin numbers.
      The true extent of the investigator's activities is only now becoming apparent as Operation Wheeting, the new police investigation into phone-hacking at the News of the World which began in January, continues. Mulcaire's targets included the actor Jude Law, who is suing the paper for breach of privacy.
      Law's case was joined the list of test cases that will be tried next year, along with that of Labour MP Chris Bryant, a former Europe minister.
      Justice Vos, the judge assigned to take charge of all the hacking claims, said they would be added to three other test cases which were chosen last month &#8211; those of the agent Sky Andrew, interior designer Kelly Hoppen and football pundit Andy Gray.
      Law's former girlfriend Sienna Miller was also scheduled to have her case against the News of the World heard next year but she indicated last week she would accept damages of £100,000 from the paper's publisher, News Group Newspapers.
      The damages that will be awarded in each of the fives test cases, should they be successful, are likely to vary because each of them alleges a different level of criminal wrongdoing by Mulcaire and the News of the World.
      Vos raised the prospect of imposing exemplary damages on parent company News International. They are set at a level high enough to punish the company for its behaviour and deter others from committing the same crime, and are often a percentage of a company's profits.
      "It's one thing for a journalist to say 'I'm desperate to get a story'," Vos said. "It's another thing for the chief executive of a company to say 'I'm desperate to make more money by getting stories in this evil way'."
      Vos added: "Was there a conspiracy between Mulcaire and News Group Newspapers to intercept voicemail messages? The answer is yes there was. Was it an agreement between the board of directors of NGN? ... I will have to determine the answer."

     
  8. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #8
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Police uncover evidence of hundreds more hacked phones

    True extent of investigator Glenn Mulcaire's activities only now becoming apparent as Operation Wheeting continues



    • James Robinson
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 21.00 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] Phone hacking investigation: Jude Law and his former girlfriend Sienna Miller both sued the News of the World. Miller settled out of court. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

      The Metropolitan police holds evidence that could prove hundreds of people had their phones hacked by the News of the World, Scotland Yard told the high court, a far greater number than had previously been believed.
      Barristers for the Metropolitan police said notes seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator on the paper's books, showed he made a note of 149 mobile phone pin numbers and around 400 unique voicemail numbers. Both are used to access messages left on mobile phones.
      Jason Beer QC, for the Metropolitan police, told a high court hearing the figures were: "a snap shot in time as of last week". Until Friday, the police had maintained Mulcaire kept a record of just 91 pin numbers.
      The true extent of the investigator's activities is only now becoming apparent as Operation Wheeting, the new police investigation into phone-hacking at the News of the World which began in January, continues. Mulcaire's targets included the actor Jude Law, who is suing the paper for breach of privacy.
      Law's case was joined the list of test cases that will be tried next year, along with that of Labour MP Chris Bryant, a former Europe minister.
      Justice Vos, the judge assigned to take charge of all the hacking claims, said they would be added to three other test cases which were chosen last month – those of the agent Sky Andrew, interior designer Kelly Hoppen and football pundit Andy Gray.
      Law's former girlfriend Sienna Miller was also scheduled to have her case against the News of the World heard next year but she indicated last week she would accept damages of £100,000 from the paper's publisher, News Group Newspapers.
      The damages that will be awarded in each of the fives test cases, should they be successful, are likely to vary because each of them alleges a different level of criminal wrongdoing by Mulcaire and the News of the World.
      Vos raised the prospect of imposing exemplary damages on parent company News International. They are set at a level high enough to punish the company for its behaviour and deter others from committing the same crime, and are often a percentage of a company's profits.
      "It's one thing for a journalist to say 'I'm desperate to get a story'," Vos said. "It's another thing for the chief executive of a company to say 'I'm desperate to make more money by getting stories in this evil way'."
      Vos added: "Was there a conspiracy between Mulcaire and News Group Newspapers to intercept voicemail messages? The answer is yes there was. Was it an agreement between the board of directors of NGN? ... I will have to determine the answer."
     
  9. EMT

    EMT JF-Expert Member

    #9
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Jan 13, 2010
    Messages: 14,215
    Likes Received: 157
    Trophy Points: 160
    Namshangaa huyo mchezaji ambaye kila mtu anamjua pamoja na uovu wake anaishtaki tweeter. Akashtaki pia magazeti ya Spain na huko Peru ambayo yamemtaja. Eti kwenye hiyo kesi anajiita CTB wakati kila mtu anamjua. What a crap! Alex Ferguson said yesterday to forget twitter and get down to your local library and read a book. What a crap as well! The digital media had made an ass of the law and it is hard to enforce injunctions against Twitter in the UK because it is incorporated in the United States any way.

    Will I get a ban if I name the player here?
     
  10. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #10
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Jude Law and Chris Bryant join phone-hacking test cases

    &#8226; Actor and MP to be among first to have cases heard
    &#8226; Court told senior NoW exec ordered hacking of Law's phone




    • James Robinson and John Plunkett
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 13.44 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] Jude Law: phone-hacking case expected to be heard later this year or early in 2012. Photograph: Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA

      Actor Jude Law and Labour MP Chris Bryant are now among the first people who will have their legal action against the News of the World over alleged phone hacking heard by the high court.
      The court also heard allegations that a senior News of the World executive, who was not named, had ordered private detective Glenn Mulcaire to hack into Jude Law's phone.
      News Group Newspapers, the publisher of the News of the World, denied this was the case.
      The pair are the newest names to be included among five test cases chosen by high court judge Mr Justice Vos, also including former Sky Sports pundit Andy Gray, agent Sky Andrew and interior designer Kelly Hoppen.
      Sienna Miller, the actor, was due to be among those whose case was heard until she accepted a £100,000 settlement from the newspaper last week.
      A secondary list of five claimants has also been drawn up in the event that further people drop out. They include comedian Steve Coogan, former footballer Paul Gascoigne, Max Clifford's former assistant Nicola Phillips, ex-MP George Galloway and Mary-Ellen Field, former adviser to model Elle Macpherson.
      The judge said the cases would enable him to decide the damages that were properly payable across a range of alleged factual situations, and make it possible for other cases to be resolved without the need for further hearings.
      He added that the trial would cover the issues of "what was agreed to be done, by whom, for what purpose, over what period and who was involved".
      Miller accepted £100,000 compensation from the News of the World earlier this month after it accepted unconditional liability for her phone-hacking claims.
      The actor was the first celebrity to settle a claim since the tabloid last month admitted hacking the phones of several public figures. It is estimated that £20m has been earmarked for payouts.
      A number of other high-profile names, including former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, have received apologies from the paper.
      Since January, when the Metropolitan police reopened its inquiry into claims that staff hacked into the messages of celebrities and politicians, three News of the World journalists have been arrested.
      Scotland Yard has endured repeated criticism over its handling of the original phone-hacking inquiry, which led to the conviction of News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in 2007.
      The cases are expected to be heard next year.
      &#8226; To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
      &#8226; To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

     
  11. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #11
    May 21, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Jude Law and Chris Bryant join phone-hacking test cases

    • Actor and MP to be among first to have cases heard
    • Court told senior NoW exec ordered hacking of Law's phone




    • James Robinson and John Plunkett
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 May 2011 13.44 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] Jude Law: phone-hacking case expected to be heard later this year or early in 2012. Photograph: Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA

      Actor Jude Law and Labour MP Chris Bryant are now among the first people who will have their legal action against the News of the World over alleged phone hacking heard by the high court.
      The court also heard allegations that a senior News of the World executive, who was not named, had ordered private detective Glenn Mulcaire to hack into Jude Law's phone.
      News Group Newspapers, the publisher of the News of the World, denied this was the case.
      The pair are the newest names to be included among five test cases chosen by high court judge Mr Justice Vos, also including former Sky Sports pundit Andy Gray, agent Sky Andrew and interior designer Kelly Hoppen.
      Sienna Miller, the actor, was due to be among those whose case was heard until she accepted a £100,000 settlement from the newspaper last week.
      A secondary list of five claimants has also been drawn up in the event that further people drop out. They include comedian Steve Coogan, former footballer Paul Gascoigne, Max Clifford's former assistant Nicola Phillips, ex-MP George Galloway and Mary-Ellen Field, former adviser to model Elle Macpherson.
      The judge said the cases would enable him to decide the damages that were properly payable across a range of alleged factual situations, and make it possible for other cases to be resolved without the need for further hearings.
      He added that the trial would cover the issues of "what was agreed to be done, by whom, for what purpose, over what period and who was involved".
      Miller accepted £100,000 compensation from the News of the World earlier this month after it accepted unconditional liability for her phone-hacking claims.
      The actor was the first celebrity to settle a claim since the tabloid last month admitted hacking the phones of several public figures. It is estimated that £20m has been earmarked for payouts.
      A number of other high-profile names, including former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, have received apologies from the paper.
      Since January, when the Metropolitan police reopened its inquiry into claims that staff hacked into the messages of celebrities and politicians, three News of the World journalists have been arrested.
      Scotland Yard has endured repeated criticism over its handling of the original phone-hacking inquiry, which led to the conviction of News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire in 2007.
      The cases are expected to be heard next year.
      • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
      • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook
     
  12. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #12
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Twitter row prompts call for superinjunctions debate in parliament

    Judiciary looking like an 'ass', says Tory MP Douglas Carswell as anger grows at courts granting celebrities anonymity



    • Daniel Boffey
    • guardian.co.uk, Saturday 21 May 2011 18.50 BST <li class="history">Article history [​IMG] The name of a Premier League footballer seeking to take action against Twitter has been repeatedly tweeted by users of the micro-blogging site. Photograph: Jonathan Hordle / Rex Features

      Judges face a furious backlash from MPs who have demanded a parliamentary debate over the widespread use of superinjunctions.
      One Tory MP has described the judiciary as an "ass" for its behaviour in recent months.
      Growing discontent at the ease with which celebrities have attained injunctions has previously led to members of the House of Commons and the Lords naming those protected by court orders, including the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Sir Fred Goodwin.
      Frustration in parliament reached new heights on Friday when the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, took the unprecedented step of criticising MPs for "flouting court orders" in the Commons.
      Judge also urged ways to be found to curtail the "misuse of technology" after the identity of a professional footballer hiding behind an injunction was widely leaked on Twitter.
      The footballer has since launched a high court action to force the social media site to reveal the identity of those behind the leaks, but users of the social media site responded by swamping the site with posts, repeatedly naming one player at a rate of up to 16 times a minute.
      Former Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said it was "highly likely" there would be a debate in the House of Commons on the issue of superinjunctions, adding that it was "plain as a pike staff" that parliament needed to reassert itself and he hoped it would do so in a month's time after the recess.
      Tory MP Douglas Carswell said he was confident the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, would ensure there was a debate. He said: "I think the problem is that the judiciary is making itself look a bit of an ass. There is something poetic about both the bill of rights and Twitter pointing towards the supremacy of the people.
      "The speaker totally gets this and I think we can trust him to ensure that there will be a debate."
      John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat backbencher, who has previously mentioned several cases covered by superinjunctions in the Commons, has also promised to continue to bring up cases. "Judges are not supposed to question the practices of parliament. It is not up to the courts to guide parliament as to what is said in parliament. This issue is creating a sort of constitutional mess." However, Labour MP Chuka Umunna said he thought it was unwise for MPs to continue to flout court orders. In a posting on Twitter, he wrote: "If MPs and peers use parliamentary privilege to flout court injunctions, that is a serious breach of the separation of powers in my view."
      Meanwhile, a Twitter spokesman said it was unable to comment on the case against it. The order against the US-based micro-blogging website requires Twitter to disclose the requested information within seven days &#8211; or within the appropriate time required by the law in California, where it has its headquarters.
      However, experts claim that lawyers at Schillings, who represent the professional footballer at the centre of the row, would need to file their case in California to have any success and this would require them to publicly reveal the name of their client.
      Lawyer Mark Stephens, who does not represent anybody involved in the case, said: "If you want to sue Twitter, you have to go to San Francisco.Any attempt to enforce English privacy or libel law will not be accepted in the US."
      Twitter has been seeking to find a European base in London. It is not known if the recent row has made the company change its plans.

     
  13. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #13
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Superinjunctions


    Most recent



    1-15 of 125 for Superinjunctions
     
  14. Rutashubanyuma

    Rutashubanyuma JF-Expert Member

    #14
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Sep 24, 2010
    Messages: 61,428
    Likes Received: 492
    Trophy Points: 180
    Superinjunctions


    Most recent



    1-15 of 125 for Superinjunctions
     
  15. Zing

    Zing JF-Expert Member

    #15
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Jun 24, 2009
    Messages: 1,780
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 0
    Rutashubanyuma U e over doing na copy and paste zako. Its tooo much and u re boring .Weka link. Habari nzuri lakini unazidisha
     
  16. m

    mankind Senior Member

    #16
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Jan 3, 2011
    Messages: 176
    Likes Received: 9
    Trophy Points: 35
    boring...
     
  17. redSilverDog

    redSilverDog JF-Expert Member

    #17
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Sep 18, 2010
    Messages: 486
    Likes Received: 3
    Trophy Points: 0
    certainly this is spamming!!!
     
  18. Mtazamaji

    Mtazamaji JF-Expert Member

    #18
    May 22, 2011
    Joined: Feb 29, 2008
    Messages: 5,972
    Likes Received: 27
    Trophy Points: 0
    not only spamming its flooding too.
     
  19. Cestus

    Cestus JF-Expert Member

    #19
    May 23, 2011
    Joined: Jan 23, 2011
    Messages: 1,002
    Likes Received: 4
    Trophy Points: 0
    hahahahahahaha bwahahahahaha umeniacha hoi kweli!
     
  20. PongLenis

    PongLenis JF-Expert Member

    #20
    Jun 24, 2011
    Joined: Sep 17, 2010
    Messages: 419
    Likes Received: 1
    Trophy Points: 33
    Hehehehe amewasikia
     
Loading...