Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Twitter Sued By British Soccer Player

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ooh-right-footballer dept.

Communications 264

norriefc writes "Here in the UK super injunctions are all the rage. These are injunctions that bar the press from even mentioning that the injunctions exist. Recently a Twitter account exposed several of these super injunctions and named several people involved and what their alleged indiscretions were. Now one 'famous' soccer player is trying to sue Twitter and the yet to be named tweeters for invasion of privacy, apparently in ignorance of the Streisand effect. I'm doubtful of an American company paying much attention to UK anti-free-speech laws"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

England (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200508)

Death to the Queen!

Re:England (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200752)

Nice try Prince Charles.

Re:England (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200792)

Hey, what's your beef with the old lady?

As the Pistols sung, God save the Queen. She's not behind any of that shit, it's not like she has any real political power. Hell, she can't even go into the parliament!

Re:England (1)

xeoron (639412) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201124)

She does have some power, considering that she has the power to de-solve parliament and bring back the monarchy, plus she is one of the largest land owners' in the world.

Re:England (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201152)

And all the proceeds from that land goes straight into the treasury in exchange for us providing her with a salary.

Although if she did dissolve parliament I'm more than certain she'd have a revolution on her hands fairly sharpish. It'd be the Roundheads and the Cavaliers all over again.

Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

Mr_Congeniality (878687) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200514)

Let's see if this makes the Guinness Book of World Records for "Shortest time a case lasted in court until being thrown out." Twitter is a social networking site. If I had people talking trash about me on their Facebook wall, it would make no sense at all to sue Facebook because of what that person said.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200520)

This.

Story over.

CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (5, Interesting)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200560)

Maybe now he will sue /. as well, or is it me who will now be sued?

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (1)

FormOfActionBanana (966779) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200608)

You own your comment.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200834)

I just can't believe any law firm would have the time or resources to research and go after several thousand people, just because they tweeted, retweeted, linked or otherwise used a certain person's name.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (2)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200842)

Couple that to the fact that this list is rapidly expanding even as we type. Those Demotivator people should make a new poster for "futilty."

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200872)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt that what RIAA does ?? (When suing for torrent downloads)

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200934)

Reprehensible as the RIAAs actions are, they are a huge, very rich organisation with top lawyers. Here though we are talking about an individual footballer. Even he doesn't have the money to fund such a long, drawn out campaign.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (3, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201048)

Even he doesn't have the money to fund such a long, drawn out campaign.

But the lawyers will have eaten all his money before he finds that out.

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200626)

Not likely. The SPEECH Act of 2010 was designed to prevent this. Anyone who tries to sue in a US court in a way that is designed to squelch free speech can be subject to damages. Since it would be a civil rights case, the damages could be tripled if I recall correctly.

Re:CTB's real name is (redacted) (2)

mikechant (729173) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200952)

Maybe now he will sue /. as well,

More likely as it has no UK 'presence' (AFAIK) he will want the courts to order UK ISPs to block /.
They already have the mechanism for CP use (google 'clean feed').

The 'great firewall' - coming to your country soon (including the US - see latest copyright infringement proposals).

Re:CTB's real name is Ryan Gigs (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201128)

Let's play name that maid... The Chinese firewall is still keeping her name off the Google pages... How do you like that for power?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200622)

Let's see if this makes the Guinness Book of World Records for "Shortest time a case lasted in court until being thrown out."

Twitter is a social networking site. If I had people talking trash about me on their Facebook wall, it would make no sense at all to sue Facebook because of what that person said.

Assuming CTB is Ryan Giggs (which is a popular belief) then's he's certainly not short of cash. (The Evening Standard has his net worth at £22 million - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/mailFrameset.do?url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/sport/football.html?in_article_id=420790&in_page_id=1779).

I think the only reason it'll be thrown out is that Twitter is not UK based. If it were, then as it exercises some editorial control (i.e. removes spam and illegal comments on request) it's viewed as a publisher and therefore is treated the same as a newspaper and would fall foul of our (super)injuction laws.

I run a big football (soccer for the septics) site/forum (thankfully not connected to Ryan Giggs) and there is (we're told on very good authority) a super-injunction placed by one of the club's owners. Not being mainstream media, we've no legitimate way of finding out the details of the injunction, yet we can be prosecuted if one of our forum members publishes the allegations.

The law in the UK surrounding citizen journalism and internet discussion is an absolute ass. Value your constitutionally protected freedom of speech

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200736)

I run a big football (soccer for the septics) site/forum...

What's that, a footbal site for people with infections?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200784)

Nothing to do with infections. It's cockney rhyming slang.
septics == septic tanks == yanks

Australians often say 'seppos' too, stands for 'septic (tanks)'.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200818)

Wait, people commonly refer to Americans as septic tanks?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200832)

Yep. It's rhyming slang rather than general abuse (unless you take offense at being called a yank, of course, which I guess quite a few people could).

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200848)

Not exactly "commonly". But cockney rhyming slang is often used in Britain.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200854)

After reading up on Cockney rhyming slang, I have to say, it is one awesome obfuscation of language.

Must be damned hard to keep track of though.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200926)

I think that's the point. It's basically a tribal thing to establish a difference between locals and non-locals, at least according to many theories.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200892)

No wonder the new standard for English is American mid-western.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

bamf (212) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200858)

Stating the obvious but:

septic = septic tank = yank = americans.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200908)

Stating the obvious but:

septic = septic tank = yank = americans.

Obvious for whom?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (3, Funny)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200922)

septic = septic tank = yank = americans.

Obvious for whom?

obvious for whom = temple of doom = Indiana Jones

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (3, Informative)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200958)

Obvious only to those familiar with Cockney rhyming slang [wikimedia.org] , which is going to be an extreme minority in the US.

Go on, click the link and have a butcher's.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

pluther (647209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201104)

To be fair, the end, if not the path to get there, was pretty obvious from context.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200910)

Golly, I've just been bowled over by obvious that wasn't!

It's also lovely how you associate Americans with a sewage containment vessel.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (3, Informative)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200886)

Not being mainstream media, we've no legitimate way of finding out the details of the injunction, yet we can be prosecuted if one of our forum members publishes the allegations.

I thought that in order to be bound by an injunction, you had to be served it?

As I understand it, every time a superinjunction is issued it gets sent out to a massive number of media organisations telling them that there is an injunction that they can't report on, but not revealing what the injunction is about. That's how everyone in the media knows which injunctions they can't report on.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

pr100 (653298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200912)

I think the only reason it'll be thrown out is that Twitter is not UK based. If it were, then as it exercises some editorial control (i.e. removes spam and illegal comments on request) it's viewed as a publisher and therefore is treated the same as a newspaper and would fall foul of our (super)injuction laws.

Twitter is in San Francisco, and the writ of the English courts haven't run in those part for a couple of centuries. It raises the question of what the point of getting a court order is in the first place.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (2)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201080)

Since California was Spanish and then Mexican before becoming American long after the War of Independence, the writ of the English courts have never run in those parts.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201180)

IT might be bad in the UK, but Google is somehow keeping 'le nom de la femme de chambre' off its pages... Somebody has a lot more power than some soccer player or even UK law.. I think that's a much bigger story. Will Slashdot pick up on it?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (5, Informative)

Panoptes (1041206) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200634)

As I understand it, the site in question is not being sued - they're being bullied into revealing the identies of the Twits who made the posts.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200838)

As much as I may disagree with the legal action on the part of this sportsguy (if it is an actual law, shouldn't the lawmakers by the way of the magistrate / DA / whatsit be chasing down whoever broke the court ordered silencing?)...

they're being bullied

I fail to see how it is bullying. It's a legal action. I'm presuming they asked nicely first and Twitter told them that they have no intent of releasing that information voluntarily and come back with a court order while snickering as they realize the many cross-jurisdictional issues at play not to mention Twitter's London office plans, etc. One step in obtaining a court order in what now appears to be a civil matter would be to file a legal claim and thus sue.

It's also hardly bullying in terms of some megacorp going against a poor widow whose only grandchild happened to download some MP3. This is a sportsguy, granted - one with 22 million quid or so, going against a company whose worth is, depending on the source you go with, anywhere between 11 and 13 BILLION dollars.
How is that bullying? Unless the value of the pound vs the dollar skyrocketed at some point.. did the rapture hit the U.S. while skipping Europe somehow?

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201008)

I'm sure those who posted those twits have 13 BILLION dollars under their beds, just in case they say something a rich football player doesn't like.

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201058)

But the twits who posted the tweets aren't the ones being sued.

As far as the twits go, there's basically a few groups.

There's the "lulz Streisand!" folk who don't fall under the jurisdiction of the court ordered silence. They've got little to fear.

There's the ones that do fall under its jurisdiction, but given that "lulz Streisand!" is in effect, I doubt some random chap from Liverpool has anything to fear either.

Then there's the ones that not only fall under its jurisdiction but are the source, being either directly ordered under the court ordered silence or having relations with one who is. Those may have something to fear.. but then again, they broke a court order. I'm pretty sure that's something that lands you in hot waters anywhere.

But you're right.. woe is the poor lad/lass who went against the court order in what he or she perceived to be unjust law and may have to defend his/her beliefs instead of being an anonymous vigilante :)

Re:Sounds like someone 'famous' is out of cash (1)

Another, completely (812244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200642)

Maybe not sue to get money for yourself, but causing the person who wrote it to pay a fine and court fees [worldradio.ch] is a possibility in Switzerland. The franc is about par with the American dollar these days, so that's a $1,500 penalty for calling someone names on Facebook.

Streisand effect (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200516)

im all up for it. tell me - who is this person and what he has done. i am even going to activate my twitter account that i only used for 3 times, just for him/her. quick. and im in turkey. turks who have no business with that person, and brit tourists who flock to turkey will all know about that idiot. just let us know.

Re:Streisand effect (5, Informative)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200540)

Just search [twitter.com] on Twitter for Imogen Thomas, the girl he had his affair with. His name will likely pop up in the first few tweets.

Re:Streisand effect (2)

kaiidth (104315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200566)

You want to know what is posted on twitter? Ask Google: 'football super injunction' [lmgtfy.com] . For me, the first link returned was something called 'CaughtOffside.com', who obviously need to be sued in England until the pips squeak.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200588)

Funny how the sexist press were telling us that no woman had taken out one of these and four have including Geordieland's people's princess who is in LA at the moment going to be a big TV star and actress.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200864)

She has? Over what?

Re:Streisand effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36201034)

Glassing someone in a pub.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200734)

Super injunctions exist to prevent the Streisand effect. Of course that only works when those who know of them, stick to them. In this case they need something stronger... double secret injuction?

Re:Streisand effect (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201026)

Although I live in the UK, I wasn't that interested in the alleged identity of the person, so I wasn't actively going digging or setting out to find out who it was anyway.

Still, while signing on to the UK Yahoo website to check one of my mail accounts, at the top of their "TRENDING NOW" list shown on the portal page was the name of a well-known British footballer which was a borderline dead-giveaway for me (unless some other story I didn't know about had gained massive prominence overnight).

Do I really care about that he's had an affair in itself? No, I couldn't give a toss. If this had just been something that had appeared on the front page of The Sun, I probably wouldn't have noticed and even if I had I wouldn't have cared. (I don't read The Sun partly because (a) who gives a **** who some celebrity slept with and (b) Rupert Murdoch can go DIAF).

I'd say it was more interesting that- despite having been around for donkeys years and now at the age where most top-flight players are winding down their careers at more obscure clubs, if not actively retired- he's still appparently playing top flight football for the same team he's been in for the past 20 years. Which is due some kind of respect anyway...

so who is it? (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200522)

Come on now. Someone has to know. Unfortunately all the talk about super injunctions I find is from UK sites that are subject to it. Let's have it now.

Re:so who is it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200528)

The name of the woman involved (who wasn't able to afford a super-injunction so has been in the full glare of publicity about this) is Imogen Thomas. Now, do I really need to explain how to use the power of Twitter search to find all the information you need?

Re:so who is it? (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200562)

Here's a handy search link [twitter.com]

Re:so who is it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200556)

Ryan Giggs

a quick search will tell you. Though I would suggest you google for the images of the model (Imogen Thomas) in question instead.

Re:so who is it? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200804)

Well, I can see why she would appeal to a footballer.

Re:so who is it? (5, Funny)

WizardMarnok (2032762) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200582)

I'm not allowed to comment. Anyway, the real loser in all this is Imogen's career as a musician. I've not heard her perform, but apprently she was doing gigs all year.

Re:so who is it? (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200702)

Do you really think you will be singled out from the thousands of other people posting his name and sued? We are not even on Twitter here, just some nerdy bulletin board.

Anyway, this court action will be over in a few days. Surely he is not enough of an idiot to waste all that money on a futile battle. Besides, he has to file a court order in California and reveal his identity to get Twitter user details.

Re:so who is it? (0)

yuri benjamin (222127) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201096)

Woosh.

Re:so who is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200590)

Former Welsh international and present Man U superstar

Re:Super Injunction (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200686)

"I am sorry to say I cannot give you that information. Now, stay tuned for a special Family Guy Clip."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWFW0B9EBx0 [youtube.com]

Re:so who is it? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200800)

It's on Wikipedia...

Re:so who is it? (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200820)

Wikipedia link [wikipedia.org]

Re:so who is it? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201086)

It's some chick I've never heard of from a shitty reality show and some dude I've never heard of. All of the American outlets are being fucking fucktards and using vague language to skirt naming the people involved. I guess they're to god damn fucking retarded to understand that the UK can't issue a gag order to the American press. This includes Slashdot. Fucking idiots. Put the names IN THE BLURB ON SLASHDOT.

Ryan Giggs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200532)

Allegedly

Re:Ryan Giggs (3, Informative)

troc (3606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200552)

I'm fairly certain that 'allegedly' is unnecessary in this case. i.e it's Ryan Giggs, definitely. :p

Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200544)

This is an American site that isn't afraid of the UK's anti free speech laws, so why didn't you say it was Ryan Giggs?

Re:Free Speech (3, Informative)

Nick Ives (317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200900)

Because it could make business in the EU problematic. If a foreign media organisation were to be found in contempt of court (in this case impossible as I doubt Geeknet Inc. has been served with this injunction) then the company directors could become the subject of a European Arrest Warrant.

It's the same reason that libel tourism is so popular; unless you have no intention of entering or doing business in the EU, you need to abide by the rules of our courts.

Quandary (3, Insightful)

WizardMarnok (2032762) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200554)

How an I supposed to know what I am not allowed to say, when the very injunction which forbids me to say it prevents me from knowing what I'm not allowed to say?

Re:Quandary (2)

AGMW (594303) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200726)

How an I supposed to know what I am not allowed to say ...

Exactly so Sir. I don't know who was served with super-injunctions which prevented them from saying things about some anonymous person (or persons) and also prevented them from even talking about the fact they can't talk about it, but I certainly haven't been told I can't talk about it?

Hmmmm. That Super-Injunction's not looking quite so Super now is it!

Honestly, I really couldn't give a toss about what footballers get up to off the pitch - actually, I don't really care what they do on the pitch either, but when they use their fame and fortune to try and restrict the Freedom of Speech I start to care, but not in a good way!!!

If you gain some of your value from your public persona then, IMHO, you sold your soul to the devil and if you live by the sword you die by the sword! Best bet is to try and keep your sword sheathed in the first place!

Re:Quandary (3, Interesting)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200738)

A superinjunction is sent to named individuals or organisations. But it includes an additional clause to "Any person who knows of this order..."

Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.

If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.

Re:Quandary (3, Insightful)

grahammm (9083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201014)

Thus if you know of the superinjunction, you are forbidden from saying what the superinjunction says you can't say.

If you don't know of the superinjunction, you can say what you like.

In this case one of the things the court is ordering is that the identity of the person posting the tweet be revealed. So how does the court know that the tweeter was either aware of the existence of the superinjunction or, if they were aware of the existence of a superinjunction, that the person about whom they were tweeting was the subject of the injunction?

Re:Quandary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36201182)

The twitter account in question is called 'injunctionsuper', and has tagged the tweets with 'superinjunction'. I suspect they were aware.

As a sidenote, does posting this mean I am also going to be arrested?

Re:Quandary (3, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200888)

Super injunctions are actually fairly new, and on the whole, people don't really understand them.

To the best of my knowledge, the law says that people are entitled to their privacy. If you violate his privacy then you may well be liable for damages caused by that breach. It's up to the court to decide whether they were entitled to privacy and whether you violated it.

Unlike the US, the courts can apply prior restraint. That is, if a publication is going to breach privacy, you can get a court injunction preventing them from doing so. Violating this is contempt of court and so punishable as such. Of course this would implicitly allow a workaround where the media implicitly reveals details by revealing that the celebrity has applied for an injunction, so the injunction has language explicitly preventing that.

If you genuinely aren't aware there's an injunction then it doesn't actually apply to you and you can only be sued for damages after the fact. If you are aware (and it seems pretty certain that you are aware) then revealing this is contempt of court.

Re:Quandary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200976)

How an I supposed to know what I am not allowed to say, when the very injunction which forbids me to say it prevents me from knowing what I'm not allowed to say?

Simple.

Wait to see if you get sued.

'famous' soccer player (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200564)

Why would Ryan Giggs try to sue Twitter over exposing his affair with Imogen Thompson? It doesn't make sense...

Re:'famous' soccer player (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200794)

Because he's pissed that it was some page nobody looks at and not a The Sun exclusive shocking story that would at least put his name in SOME context into people's mind.

Super-injunctions “best publicity value&rdqu (1, Offtopic)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200580)

Several tedious Z-list celebrities have demanded Twitter user @injunctionsuper post details of their tawdry and squalid lives too [newstechnica.com] .

[REDACTED] tweeted: "Rumur that I hv super-injunction preventing publication of 'intimate' photos of me n my bank account. NOT TRUE! Also, tits. FER FUXAKE PLS RT"

The revelation that decent British people can read things on Internet services that aren't even based in the UK has left celebrities and politicians shocked, shocked that people actually have ways of gaining information that aren't filtered through the hamstrung UK print press. "Clearly," said minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries Ed Vaizey, "we need to protect our valuable pop music and football industries with a Great Firewall of Britain without delay."

"In the modern world of the Internet, the secret or super-injunction may no longer be an effective tool in the administration of justice," said BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman, in an attempt on the world record for fatuity.

"We tried to bugger the Internet last year," said Peter Mandelson, "but did you listen?"

A spokesman for Wikipedia suggested that journalists looking for space-filler stories just fuck off until August as usual.

Re:Super-injunctions “best publicity value&a (4, Funny)

kaiidth (104315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200600)

It's not just the Internet. Spanish press published the identity of said soccer player weeks ago. We must eradicate the teaching of foreign languages in Britain!

Actually it is fair to say that the last decade or so of educational policy already did a pretty good job of that, but at least now we know it's a good thing.

Re:Super-injunctions “best publicity value&a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36201122)

"We tried to bugger the Internet last year," said Peter Mandelson, "but did you listen?"

The internet's not like a big truck, you know; it's more like a series of hedgehogs.

Super Injunction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200616)

Only winners here seem to be the footballers Lawyers. They must be laughing all the way to the Bank.

Tag (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200624)

Please tag this story with Ryan and Giggs... :)

Naming (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200646)

For the record, it's called football, not Soccer.

Only americans would call handegg football (which dosen't inolve much kicking of ball).

Re:Naming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200814)

you're obviously unaware that "rugby" is called "rugby football" even though it uses an egg-shaped ball and doesn't really involve all that much more kicking than american football (ie rugby for wimps) does

Re:Naming (1, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200938)

True, but hardly anyone actually calls it that because it's a silly name for a game where you don't use your feet.

tag story with ryan_giggs (5, Informative)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200658)

See title, tag the story so no one misses it :D

Re:tag story with ryan_giggs (1)

FaxeTheCat (1394763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200718)

Who is Ryan Giggs?

Re:tag story with ryan_giggs (3, Informative)

Winckle (870180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200744)

The "unnamed" soccer player in the news story. He's a veteran player for Manchester United and formerly played internationally for Wales.

Re:tag story with ryan_giggs (3, Informative)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200878)

Plenty of info on Wikipedia too. I'm glad they stuck to their promise and didn't censor.

Ryan Giggs gagging order [wikipedia.org]

The comments about him being skint are laughable. He plays for Man Utd - one of the richest teams in the world.

England's worst kept secret.

hymenologists; 1k yr. darkness ends, truth escapes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200676)

an end to fear, greed & egomaniacal neogodism? isn't that what's helping us keep our enemies ascared of their owned rulers?

after the ongoing disarmament there'll be no need for phony artificially inflated 'big deals' determining our fate, so that'll be good news.

Congratulations, Imogen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200698)

You've made your little affair noteworthy by wikipedia's standards. [wikipedia.org]

Can someone clarify (3, Informative)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200762)

Is Ryan Giggs suing for privacy or for libel? Basically, is he confirming the story?

Re:Can someone clarify (1)

Relyx (52619) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200806)

The fact that he hasn't come out and announced the rumours as libellous confirms the story. The other week, Jemima Khan was wrongly named and she promptly put that story to bed.

I am still trying to grapple with the stupidity of his legal advice.

Re:Can someone clarify (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36201040)

The footballer in question (I'm in the UK and I will take no part in mentioning of names), obtained a UK court injunction stopping his name from being published, under UK privacy laws. There has been no mention of libel, but under UK law you have a right to privacy from the press. Although this is only the case if you are rich and can afford such injunctions.

A famous welsh footballer who has played professionally for the same top club for 21 years, winning 12 Premier League titles and two UEFA Champions League titles could certainly afford such an injunction.

Re:Can someone clarify (3, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201100)

no, a footballer who cannot be named has sued Twitter. It may or may not be him, but he's relying on the injunction to keep his real name off the court papers...

Not Anti Free Speech. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36200924)

The UK doesn't have any anti free speech laws. It has laws against Libel and Slander, and there are some european laws on privacy that the UK courts are inerpreting in a rather broad manner to give rise to these superinjunctions. I suspect Twitter will just tell the UK lawyers to go to a US court first, and it'll stop there.

Twitter's probably reponse (1)

AAWood (918613) | more than 3 years ago | (#36200932)

"How exactly could we know not to allow comments about your injunction if we don't know there is an injunction because of the injunction?"

Joss Whedon was right (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201024)

You can't stop the signal

Fight Club Rules? (3, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201084)

So...I guess the first rule about super injunctions is you do not talk about super injunctions?

Streisand Effect? needs renaming (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201088)

this footballer has just made himself look massively stupid... so needs his name used to illustrate the futility of attempting to keep something secret in the information age...

Re:Streisand Effect? needs renaming (2, Informative)

damburger (981828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201108)

The name you are looking for is 'Ryan Giggs'

Presidents (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36201174)

OK, it may be begging a Streisand effect to attempt to maintain discretion by way of the law, but I'm not wild about the cavalier attitude of suggesting American companies should ignore local laws. If we want one global agreement on rules of conduct, perhaps we should actually negotiate a common set of principles instead of "what America says is the law, is the law because there's nothing you can do about it".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?