A California judge has ordered Twitter to disclose the details of a handful of users who have been slagging off some councillors and an official at South Tyneside.
Nothing to do with injunctions, the people concerned are alleging libel.
Another creative use of public funds, too.
The council engaged an American law firm to pursue this, which will have been expensive.
Wonder if the hapless ratepayers on South Tyneside will also have to pay for the councillors' grandiloquent attempts to restore their reputations.
tinyurl.com/3bfyk5v
|
South Tyneside seem a bit shy/tardy releasing their "credit card" expenses:
tinyurl.com/4xdqxrg
It'll be interesting to see what else comes out of the woodwork as this unfolds:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/council-spending/
|
Another blow to free speech.
However there are fairly simple ways to hide one's identity.
A false name; sign up using an anonymous email address, itself set up with another anonymous email address and either post from an internet cafe without cctv, or use an anonymous proxy server.
|
"a false name; sign up using an anonymous email address, itself set up with another anonymous email address and either post from an internet cafe without cctv, or use an anonymous proxy server."
If these people posting on Twitter have the evidence to substantiate their claims I doubt they will be too worried. If they are making unsubstantiated allegations then its hardly a blow to free speech, unless you believe its OK to make any unsupported statement you like about anybody without fear of any come-back
|
|
There's a good write up in Private Eye on the circumstances of Tyne's interest and reasons. Buy it and read !
|
>> A few Twitterers will be twitchy this morning
but apparently the new twitterer Sue Mae is not worried.
|
A few Twitterers will be twitchy this morning - AnotherJohnH
