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!

Tweeter To Be Prosecuted, Twitter Now Censoring?

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the none-shall-tweet dept.

Twitter 195

Andy Smith writes "Slashdot has already covered the super-injunctions furore in the UK, with one famous footballer going after an anonymous Twitter user who broke a court order and revealed his extra-marital affair. Now another footballer has asked the attorney general to prosecute a well-known journalist and TV personality, who went against another super-injunction and wrote about this footballer, again on Twitter. Meanwhile, going back to the first footballer, it looks like he's got Twitter running scared, as the site is apparently blocking his name from appearing on the trend list, despite him being one of the most tweeted-about people."

cancel ×

195 comments

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

whats this all about then? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208114)

why would ryan giggs do such a thing?

Re:whats this all about then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208706)

because he is a hu man bean

Imogen Thomas (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208116)

Just heard former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas has got a secret singing career.
Apparently she's been doing gigs in Manchester for ages.

Re:Imogen Thomas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208612)

Are you sure its ryan i have the utmost respect for his career and person.

They won't be able to keep this Gig up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208124)

You can't do something wrong and then cry to the judge to silence everyone.

Slashdot is not UK based (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208144)

Names dammit! It's hard to keep track of who's doing what without names. I know about Giggs so who exactly is the "another" player here?

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208216)

This one is referred to as TSE. Apparently it is Alan Shearer who seems plausible due to the massive number of permanently deleted edits on his Wikipedia page.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

Bertie (87778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208690)

It's not Alan Shearer. I know who it is but there's no way I'm going posting it here. All I'm saying is that he's not very well known and if I tell you you'll shrug.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209158)

Oh? I heard Imogen Thomas talked Alan Shearer into blowing Ryan Gigs while she watched. Isn't the whole "blackmail" thing the fact that two footballers were messing around together, not just with her?

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (2)

Artifex (18308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208234)

You're right, Slashdot is not UK-based. It's also Slashdot. Which means most of us probably don't follow sports celebrities. :)

Now that you've got me actually reading the linked blog, I see Andy Smith gives a "Round of applause for today’s Sunday Herald for identifying the footballer who is trying to sue a Twitter user for identifying him, in violation of a court order." But does he dare say the name, himself?

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208490)

Ryan Giggs. The genie is out of the bottle.

They made a good point about these injunctions on Radio 4. They are often used to prevent blackmail. Maybe Ryan Gifts didn't do it, but now everyone thinks he did.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209430)

Which means most of us probably don't follow sports celebrities.

Some of us don't follow ANY "celebrities". They are all dissappointing, sooner or later. Hell, even John Wayne cashed in his chips some years ago. If the Duke let us down, all the celebs will, eventually.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209704)

He says it in the print edition of the paper, only available in Scotland; not on the web edition which is also available in England where the court order was made.

Neither is Twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208250)

And probably the anonymous Twitter user being targeted is not a member of the press (at which the injunction is aimed).

Re:Neither is Twitter (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208594)

Bingo! How does a court injunction against a reporter have any bearing on anyone else? And how can such an injunction be enforced if the target discloses the "illegal information" (**sneer**) pseudonymously? The judge is obviously drunk on his own power if he imagines he can prevent gossip.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208292)

Ok so it's Ryan giggs, we've got that. But who's the journalist? I figured it'd be Ian Hisslop but I'm not sure.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (2)

Sparkyjay23 (883762) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208368)

Ok so it's Ryan giggs, we've got that. But who's the journalist? I figured it'd be Ian Hisslop but I'm not sure.

Giles Coren for tweeting about TSE - (Gareth Barry), another Player whose taking out an injunction preventing folk talking about an affair he had.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

Bertie (87778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208702)

I think I know who it is but I'm not 100% sure. I'll give you a clue - he's a former editor of a major national tabloid and widely hated. But he's not Piers Morgan.

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209376)

Ian Hislop clearly despises superinjunctions, but he prefers not to be sued. Just see the "Odd One Out" round on recent episodes of HIGNFY (IIRC series 41 episodes 4 and 5; possibly also 3; the OOO round is usually about three quarters of the way through the non-extended version, and you can find them on Youtube).

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209402)

The real Ian Hislop only has one tweet. I was thinking it might be Piers Morgan...

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (4, Informative)

madprof (4723) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208330)

The journalist is Giles Coren and the footballer is Gareth Barry. So I read on a website.
http://www.information-britain.co.uk/tweeters/user/47583067/ [informatio...tain.co.uk]

Re:Slashdot is not UK based (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209294)

And now some sportsperson I never heard of is indelibly marked as an alduterer. Gotta love that Streisand effect.

Where is this going to end (2)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208154)

Are you telling me that cheap gossip like extra-marital affairs of pro footballers will have to be leaked through wikileaks in the future?

Re:Where is this going to end (4, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208318)

"Are you telling me that cheap gossip like extra-marital affairs of pro footballers will have to be leaked through wikileaks in the future?"

I'm less concerned about cheating football players and more concerned with overthrowing [southjerseylocalnews.com] corrupt governments [techcrunch.com] . Can a corrupt judge in a corrupt government simply say "don't talk about revolution" and Twitter will simply roll over and play dead? How would the Egyptian and Tunisia revolutions gone without the communication that Twitter provided?

Looks like we need a replacement for twitter.

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208444)

Looks like we need a replacement for twitter.

We need a bulletproof, invincible replacement for the entire internet and its infrastructure

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209510)

Looks like we need a replacement for twitter.

Actually - Great Britian needs a few replacement laws regarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and repealing huge parts of their libel and defamation laws.

Also, a legal trick here in the US might help out over there. If you address an officer of the court (a cop), telling him that he's an asshole, he can file charges against you. However, if you use the prefix, "In my opinion, you're being an asshole!" he can't do anything. It's a matter of stating an opinion, versus phrasing the same thing as a fact.

So, try it out, Brits. Instead of posting, "John is a poof", try, "In my opinion, John is a poof."

Re:Where is this going to end (2)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209812)

The European Convention on Human Rights has the right to privacy at No. 8, and the right to freedom of speech at No. 10.

Human rights are not an absolute thing, one right contradicts another, and you have to find a balance. He we have decided that the right to privacy and the right to protect your reputation against untrue statements is more important that the right to free speech.

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209784)

Twitter didn't censor the messages, just the "trend list." It wouldn't have hurt the revolutionaries at all.

Re:Where is this going to end (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208348)

To be honest, that was never any business of the public at large. It's just that in the UK they can go to the courts and get an injunction. Whereas in the US there's little to nothing that can be done to keep the press out of the private lives of celebrities. To an extent that's natural, but if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.

Re:Where is this going to end (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208438)

> ...if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.

If it didn't happen in public the public would not know about it.

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208710)

Bingo! John wins the intertubez for today for what should be the most obvious and yet, most intelligent, statement of this thread.

Re:Where is this going to end (2)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209058)

>> ...if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.
> If it didn't happen in public the public would not know about it. When you are a celebrity the lines between public and private shift. She might have been visiting him at home, and yet it could become public knowledge from a gossipy neighbor. Regardless, the press should be free to report it. It's not like celebrities don't get compensated for their loss of privacy.

Re:Where is this going to end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209902)

have you heard of this thing called the internet? I heard it is this thing where people communicate on a scale like never before.

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208472)

But they are public figures. If they don't like it, they can go crawl back up into the womb...

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208618)

That might be just a bit impractical, but certainly they are free to drop out of the cruel, pitiless public eye that helped them make a bazillion dollahs. :)

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208640)

That's right.. We NASCAR fans only go to the race to see a wreck.. Fame is a demolition derby, and that's a fact, jack!

Re:Where is this going to end (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209558)

Uhhhh - not exactly a NASCAR "fan" - hell, I couldn't name more than three drivers. But, I do watch a race now and then. And, I don't watch to see a wreck. Watching someone drive at high speed is sometimes almost as exhilirating as driving at high speed yourself. I don't have any officially clocked speeds, but I've been over 180 mph on two wheels, over 150 on four wheels, and somewhere between 115 and 120 on 18 wheels.

I'm not crazy (I hope) but sometimes,

I FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED!!!

Re:Where is this going to end (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209738)

I think the point is that fame is a "build 'em up, tear 'em down" game -- that's part of the entertainment as far as most "consumers" are concerned. All famous people know this, yet they often try to resist that inevitable equal yet opposite reaction... Don't we all just want to have our cake and eat it, too? :)

Re:Where is this going to end (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208534)

What makes you think that's the reason for his taking out the injunction? It has been suggested that she, in association with a UK newspaper, had photographs taken of their leaving a hotel after a meeting she arranged at which she asked for a very large sum of money to keep their story private. That amounts to blackmail and would give the court ample reason to prevent her, or the paper, from publishing the story.

its Ryan Giggs. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208158)

Ryan Giggs, its ryan giggs, its the welshman Ryan Giggs. - Just incase anyone was wondering.

Re:its Ryan Giggs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208294)

The first one is. The second one is someone else.

Re:its Ryan Giggs. (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209130)

The first one is. The second one is someone else.

Pssh, only in Linux.

Re:its Ryan Giggs. (1)

gnieboer (1272482) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209492)

Yep, that's slashdot...
We take an article about sports celebrities and legal issues surrounding rights of privacy and ... manage to make a linux joke. A funny one too. Gotta love it :)

Re:its Ryan Giggs. (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208786)

Wait, do you mean the footballers is Ryan Giggs, or the tweeter is Ryan Giggs, or is it somehow both?

Perhaps Giggs created the twitter account himself in a fit of terrible remorse for his exploitation of the legal system.

Why Not Block All Reference To The Aggreived (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208170)

The solution appears to be simply to remove all reference to the individual. He wishes privacy - let him have it - though perhaps a list of such "black hole" names should be published - to explain the mysterious absence of all reference to the individual - and to protect the 'innocent' of course..

Trending Topics (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208206)

Twitter has been censoring and controlling the Trending Topics for like a year or more now. When they feel like something is advertising, even if by a group of fans, they block it. If they feel like something is controversial, they block it. TT being censored is nothing new or news-worthy if you've been paying even the slightest bit of attention.

Re:Trending Topics (2)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208414)

AFAIK, it's not active censorship (i.e. silencing certain content), but rather the way the trending topics algorithm works, in that it will ditch topics after a sharp spike, to limit itself to 'breaking news' [pcmag.com] . You still find loads of tweets if you search for Ryan Giggs.

Online newsagent scared by naming of footballer? (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208256)

Similar to the trend list thing, here's another case of apparent censorship under fear. A newspaper identified one of the footballers, and that issue of the paper is missing from the online newsagent PressDisplay, even though PressDisplay is based in Canada, supposedly outside the reach of UK courts.

http://www.meejahor.com/2011/05/22/paper-identifies-injunction-footballer-scares-online-newsagent/ [meejahor.com]

Re:Online newsagent scared by naming of footballer (1)

SilentChasm (998689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208324)

It also might be due to copyright. PressDisplay would need a license from the newspaper to distribute it online wouldn't they? And the newspaper presumably couldn't license and distribute something that's been barred by a court order, could they?

Still bad though.

Re:Online newsagent scared by naming of footballer (1)

Sardak (773761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209968)

Don't worry. It's probably just over at the Ministry of Truth [wikipedia.org] being "cleaned up" before being put online.

Ryan Giggs is STILL trending (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208270)

The algorithm that twitter use favours novelty tweets over mass tweets. For my location Ryan Giggs is still trending whilst it has stopped elsewhere. There was an explanation of this after people accused twitter of censoring cablegate and wikileaks.

So: TD;DR Twitter are NOT censoring Giggs, its just their algorithm doing what it does.

A suggestion (5, Insightful)

dwillden (521345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208286)

For those overpaid athletes: Don't want people tweeting about your affairs? Don't step out on your spouse. It's plain and simple. If they insist on being able to cheat on their wives then they should retire and leave the limelight so nobody will care.

Their fame naturally reduces their ability to live a private life. But they don't have to live that life, they could get a regular job and disappear into the crowd.

Re:A suggestion (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208364)

Yes, but it's still not any business of the public what celebrities do on their own time. Now if they run for congress, particularly on a family values ticket, then it might be our business. As it is it isn't any more our business than if the neighbor down the street is doing it.

Re:A suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208452)

Yes, but it's still not any business of the public what celebrities do on their own time....As it is it isn't any more our business than if the neighbor down the street is doing it.

You don't get out much, do you?

National Enquirer [nationalenquirer.com]
Star [starmagazine.com]
Us Magazine [usmagazine.com]

Re:A suggestion (1)

dwillden (521345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208476)

But we are just as free to tweet about a neighbor who is having an affair as we are a famous person. If we are making it up we can rightfully be charged with libel or slander, but if it's true, sucks for them that they were caught. The difference? Just that nobody cares about the neighbor.

These athletes and other stars want to live in the limelight, they gotta deal with the costs of fame, and that means their life on display, every aspect analyzed and discussed by fans.

Re:A suggestion (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208572)

If we are making it up we can rightfully be charged with libel or slander...

That's a load of BS also. The only thing the 'aggrieved' has a right to do is deny the story, call the 'tweeter' dirty names, and reverse the accusations. They don't have any right to muzzle the speaker. They can shoot anybody who listens though...

Re:A suggestion (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208752)

But we are just as free to tweet about a neighbor who is having an affair as we are a famous person.

I'm not sure that this is true in the EU. Both the right to privacy and the right to free speech are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Right, so the EU Court of Human Rights would balance those out against each other and decide which one trumps which in this particular situation. Even in case of famous people, there is a balance to be upheld. See e.g. Naomi Campbell v MGN [bllaw.co.uk]

Re:A suggestion (1)

mano the shark (1641865) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208526)

I believe you're completely missing the point. There is a reason these elite players are getting paid more in a year than most people make in their lifetime. Sure the owners and fans want their team to win, but the sport is really for entertainment purposes. These players are on a different level than your typical person because no one cares if a player from the local intramural team has an affair. Look at US soccer where the national interest isn't that high and then note that there is a chance that I make more than some of the players on the team. Popular sport have created a scarce commodity and have driven up the cost of the sport from tickets to merchandise to advertising. If he doesn't like the attention he should give up his paycheck, go play for a no name team and then find a side job to try and pay the bills.

Re:A suggestion (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208532)

None of that matters. Nobody has a right to decide what is 'business of the public' or to censor what does come out. It's very simple. They have to accept that it goes with the territory... And we sure can't allow 'secret' injunctions, gag orders, or anything else of the sort.

Re:A suggestion (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208552)

Sure we do. I have a right to privacy when at home or in places where I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just because somebody is a celebrity does not mean that suddenly they have no privacy rights. It just means that they don't get to be anonymous in a crowd any more.

I realize that this is an unpopular position, but the reality is that whom a particular celebrity is sleeping with is hardly any of our business. Even if he or she is married.

Re:A suggestion (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208678)

No, actually we should just drop our pathological hangups about sex.. That's the real sickness

Re:A suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208680)

Actually unless you want to curb free speech, it is everybody's business. Even who *I* am sleeping with is the publics business to talk about if they so choose, but nobody gives a shit about me. The other option leaves it so that even if someone's spouse is obviously cheating on them, it would be illegal to make it known to him or her or their friends. Don't tell me that's only for "their friends or concerned parties to know" because who gets to decides that? You? The government? The truth is you do have a legal right to privacy on your own property, etc. So stay in there and keep the curtains drawn and don't use any obvious public roads to commit your various acts. Once you leave that property or do things visible from public property you have surrendered any rights you had.

Re:A suggestion (1)

FroBugg (24957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209400)

But this isn't about a right to privacy. If this was about a right to privacy, then whoever uncovered the information in the first place would be the target of legal action, not everybody talking about it. This is the age of the internet and vast, multinational communication. Trying to stop information that's already out there is just a lot of flailing about that's going to hurt a few people and have no real effect.

Whether we should care or not doesn't enter into it, because the laws he wants to use to silence everyone are the same ones politicians or other actually important public figures will use when we find out about things they don't want in the public.

Re:A suggestion (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208586)

No one cares he's shitting on his wife and family. People are talking about this because he's abusing the law to hush it up. Had he ignored it, he'd only have to deal with his wife's divorce firm, and no one would be remotely interested in yet another Premier League player getting caught sleeping around.

Re:A suggestion (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208832)

Do you think you should be able to take out a court order on your neighbors if some of them spot you "stepping out" on your spouse?

Re:A suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209340)

And it's not any business of the celebrities what people say.

Re:A suggestion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208428)

I don't agree. Yeah, fame reduces your *ability* to live a private life, but that doesn't mean it reduces your *right* to it. Fame also increases your right to have your home burglarized, but that doesn't mean breaking into your home isn't a crime anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I do not think that superinjunctions are in any way defensible. I'm not even sure about normal injunctions that don't pertain to parties in a specific trial: I am not convinced courts should have the right to order outsiders to do this or that unless there is a specific provision in the law allowing precisely that action.

But whether you have an affair is between you and your spouse no matter whether you're famous. It's a different issue e.g. when you're a hypocrite, preaching about family values while having affairs, and similarly, someone who actively seeks out the limelight and shares his private life with the yellow press can't complain when they report unfavorably on them later on, but beyond that, what a professional footballer is doing in his spare time does noone's business.

Re:A suggestion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208964)

If you take a job where you make millions of dollars solely because people watch you, I think that does diminish your right to privacy. Playing sports isn't something of inherent value to society even if there are no fans of the sport. What's more, some $30k/year schmuck isn't going to be able to afford this extra-ordinary gag measure, so if someone tweet's about that guy's affair he just has to deal with the fact he got caught cheating. As others have pointed out: if you don't want to be called an adulterer, the best thing is to not commit adultery.

Re:A suggestion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208966)

Actually, at least in America, being a celebrity DOES reduce your right to privacy.

Re:A suggestion (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209324)

Since you are arguably making significant financial gains from giving up that privacy, it might be debatable as to how much privacy you can retain, I mean ultimately facts are facts and the truth will out.

Re:A suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208748)

Yeah, well. If we had a RIGHT to free speech in the UK then you couldn't super-injunct anything

Maybe the press should start getting super-injunctions on stuff and start using them aggressively against celebs and courts like how the USA uses flimsy patents on things with rounded corners, etc.

If morons like Giggs could exercise some self control over their otherwise meaningless lives then super-injunctions (presumably only obtainable by the super rich, privileged and pointless) wouldn't exist.

A counter-suggestion (1)

PeanutButterBreath (1224570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209256)

For gossip-mongers: Get a life of your own.

Re:A suggestion (4, Interesting)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209448)

The flaw in your point is it's not proven he has been cheating and tabloid stories are nothing short of propaganda, it's a character assassination and the media is the weapon of choice.

In the UK, how it works is that the story is the story. Whether he has actually been cheating, eaten someone's hamster or whatever is barely relevant. It's a battle of PR clout.

These stories have very common themes: the male is some kind of famous, the girl is some desperate wannabe famous and is represented by Max Clifford [wikipedia.org] . If the male is at the peak of his celebrity, it's a fair bet that he did not pay his protection money, er I mean is not employing Max Clifford and a PR firm is trying to snag him with a grappling hook in order to drag up their "victim" into the spotlight for fame and/or interview fees.

On the other hand, if the male is in danger of dropping off the radar, it's a fair bet that both he and the "victim" are employed by the same publicist and the whole thing is a ruse to get back into the spotlight. Like when "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster" (see that wiki link [wikipedia.org] ).

(There are of course stories about females but the story is more varied.)

It's all very well to throw up the "free speech" banners, but I'm not convinced it applies when your speech is all about attacking another person for cheap personal gain and the media operates no journalistic controls at all.

Ryan Giggs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208308)

Isn't he gay?

Re:Ryan Giggs (1)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208320)

lol

Trend list, bah! (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208322)

First, of course, removing something from the trend list is not censorship. It's a top ten type list, not the content itself.

Second, there have been complaints about the twitter trend list [wordpress.com] for a long time. The trend list has never seemed to be just a numerical ranking of tweets - I don't regard it as any more reliable than a Slashdot poll. Whatever they are doing here is probably not new.

I have also heard rumors that the trend list is particularized for the viewer (i.e., we don't all see the same trend lists), probably on a geographic basis. I wonder if people in the UK can see trends for He Who Must Not Be Named ?

Re:Trend list, bah! (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208638)

Well, it's not a simple popularity contest because it would become the boon of spammers. The industry of metrics that preclude those folk is developing, but as someone who's deep in it, it's a complicated beast to tame, and you're going to see 'trends' change a great deal over the next several months as it's all figured out.

Barbara Streisand effect all over again (3, Insightful)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208372)

This gag order thing is going to make Ryan Giggs look far worse than whatever it is he's been doing without his wife's knowledge.

Re:Barbara Streisand effect all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208634)

This is so true. Writing as AC because otherwise I admit to being drawn towards following such trainwrecks of their own doing. What with my boring, 'relatively' low-paid gig in I.T. with 'all' those women around me. I now find the unfolding Ryan Giggs story worth watching from behind my terminals, for Streisand parallels if nothing else. And I'm American with zero interest in soccer/football. Cheap thrills, I know.

Nafissatou Diallo (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208378)

I can't find any Windows 98 drivers for my computer either. I thought Twitter might work, since Google has become so useless. Microsoft is obviously up to something..There's just no hope of sustaining a truly free internet

Cloud Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208550)

Let's face it people, once you choose to put your information in the "cloud", it's out there... you should not be surprised that at some point it will come back to hunt you. I wrote more about this on my blog {shameless self promotion} here http://goo.gl/tCWZ9

This story does not make any sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208556)

Why would Twitter censor a trending topic and do not censor tweets?

An explanation is easy: The trending topics are not simply the most tweeted-about people, the Twitter algorithm takes several factors in account. E.g. If someone has already been trending topic sometimes it gets harder for him to reappear. And I guess football stars in UK are familiar topics on Twitter.

Under Control??? (2)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208656)

FTA: However, he (Lord Neuberger) warned that modern technology was "totally out of control" and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.

Personally, I think Lord Neuberger and those like him are the ones that need to be brought under control.

Re:Under Control??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209030)

life lesson: jews and government don't mix.

Re:Under Control??? (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209200)

Lord Neuberger has a case of "Think of the kids I want off my lawn!". It is a culture/generation war thing. If the UK wants to keep this super injunction law and impose it on their own domain, let them. I disagree with it, but it is their country and it is up to UK residents if this is a battle they want to fight or even feel needs to be fought.

I am beginning to take interest in this because these Super Injunctions are failing to take into account we live in a global world now. Pot calling the kettle black moment coming up, but this is a bunch of Brits trying to impose their law world wide because some sport stars misbehaved behind their wives' backs.

I'm dumbfounded how fast the threshold for attempting censorship on the International information flow* has gone from "National Security" > "Piracy" > "Some blokes embarrassed about what they did"

*By governments, and companies like Twitter seemingly complying.

Re:Under Control??? (2)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209444)

Actually it's not a bunch of Brits: it's one single judge. What I recall from what I've seen of the Prime Minister's comments on the situation seem to indicate that he views it as legislating from the bench and that work is under way to get some proper, sane, legislation through Parliament.

It's not even a real football. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208664)

It's those roundish balls made of triangles and stuff. Also known as "wussy-ball".

Re:It's not even a real football. (1)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209772)

Fun fact: A football as used in Gridiron/American Football is 11 1/2 inches from tip to tip. The ball was shortened to make the forward pass easier. When the game was invented, the ball was one foot long.

don't do it, then, blockhead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36208676)

Like my dear brother said: If you don't want something to appear on Twitter/Facebook - Don't do it.

Suppressions of Freedom (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36208918)

Under what great mystical process can any government claim that an adulterer can not be publicly pointed to as an adulterer? Freedom involves a willingness to allow exposure of the worst parts of all of us. The basic notion of promoting the best of us while limiting the success of the worst of us needs to run its natural course. In the old days a man could challenge another man and the rightness was established by the strongest in lethal combat. The realization that great people and strong muscles do not mean superiority changed that. It was replaced by the notion that passing certain tests and standards determined the most worthy of us. One such test involves honesty and another loyalty. In 1890 an adulterer would have huge struggle finding work. After all if he will cheat and lie to his own wife what will he do to others with whom he has even weaker bonds than marriage?

Re:You mean TRUSTWORTHYNESS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209126)

freedom=entropy

Re: Suppressions of Freedom (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209434)

The government should stay the hell out of it. While they are at it, they should just stay the hell out of marriage. People talk, but the media should only report in the public interest. Thank Christ it's not 1890!

Ryan Giggs ? (2)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209072)

If it is him I can say it all I like, I'm in Scotland and the order doesn't apply here.

Names!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36209600)

UK courts issued injunctions to prevent the press from revealing damaging evidence about famous people. Namely: Alan Shearer (caught having affair with Gabby Logan), Ewan McGregor (caught with a prostitute), and Ryan Giggs (caught having affair with Imogen Thomas). I posted this because the UK judge who issued the Giggs injunction called it an "injunction against the world". Meaning that, due to his feeble understanding of international law, he believes that somehow he has authority over my actions. He also, apparently, thinks that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for revealing this information. So, this entire post is just my way of saying, "Hey, go fuck yourself" to that judge. One judge cannot, despite his best efforts, censor the internet. The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
Censoring the press is a scary proposition, even when it's done for all the right reasons. (ie. protection of a witness, to ensure a fair trial, or to protect national security). But to issue a "gag order" against the press to protect the wealthy and famous from embarrassment is a very small step away from corruption. If the judges will issue an injunction for these matters, how long will it be before the politicians start using the courts to suppress their opposition?

Re:Names!!! (1)

rkww (675767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209640)

He also, apparently, thinks that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for revealing this information. So, this entire post is just my way of saying, "Hey, go fuck yourself" to that judge.

So why did you post anonymously ?

Re:Names!!! (1)

DLiver420 (2188864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209728)

I didn't have an account. I just set up one. Repost: UK courts issued injunctions to prevent the press from revealing damaging evidence about famous people. Namely: Alan Shearer (caught having affair with Gabby Logan), Ewan McGregor (caught with a prostitute), and Ryan Giggs (caught having affair with Imogen Thomas). I posted this because the UK judge who issued the Giggs injunction called it an "injunction against the world". Meaning that, due to his feeble understanding of international law, he believes that somehow he has authority over my actions. He also, apparently, thinks that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for revealing this information. So, this entire post is just my way of saying, "Hey, go fuck yourself" to that judge. One judge cannot, despite his best efforts, censor the internet. The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Censoring the press is a scary proposition, even when it's done for all the right reasons. (ie. protection of a witness, to ensure a fair trial, or to protect national security). But to issue a "gag order" against the press to protect the wealthy and famous from embarrassment is a very small step away from corruption. If the judges will issue an injunction for these matters, how long will it be before the politicians start using the courts to suppress their opposition?

solution: (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209686)

instead of returning a twitter page in the UK, return a page that explicitly list everyone involved in the case (judges and all), why and the post the legal documents. i wonder how fast they will change their mind on this censorship bullshit.

Ans Slashdot?? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 3 years ago | (#36209790)

Since when is Slashdot UK based?
then tell me: WHO ARE THESE FOOTBALLERS????
(and who did they frell?)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?