Twitter and certain Twitter users have been sued in the High Court in London by an individual referred to only by the initials "CTB". The initials are meant to maintain the anonymity of the individual, but the same initials were used in a previous suit brought by a professional footballer in the UK who has won a so-called "super …
Is this anonymous person suing these anonymous people because he thinks this will help him remain anonymous?
If he does think this, he should look himself up on the internet. It's no secret. Does he intend to sue Google, Yahoo!, Bing and the like?
Cue drum roll.
A few hours ago most people in Britain didn't care which footballer this was.
Now the whole world knows.
In fact more people probably know who this is then who knows what a footballer is.
Great job there handling social media lawyers!
he is super-rich so he can afford super-lawyers and keep his name super-secret.
A big "Well Done!" to all concerned. Money well spent. Probably could've built a sports ground for kids, or maybe a library.
Again, a big "Well Done!".
How do we know if what was said in twitter was true?
Well we don't unless the aggrieved party decides to sue these anonymous beings and confirms it is true. Gosh he really must be a footballer!
Can't blame organisation Mr 5p for taking on the case, these footballers earn some fine bucks and have apparently have little idea on how it is best spent.
I chose 'Love It' because in the case of Imagen, I certainly would.
Ignorance of the law is compulsory
Hang on, so people are being sued for breaking an injunction that they are not allowed to know the contents of? Err ...
Letters and d1g1t5
"Twitter has long be a proponent of online free speech, and it does not yet have a UK presence."
Possibly the latter is precisely because of the former. It's a shame how far down the path of censorship and government control of information this country is getting. All with the best of intentions, of course.
Gravestone to mark the passing of freedom of speech in once-great Britain.
Personally I agree with the expert on Sky News
Who said something like:
"If you don't want your name sullied in the papers then don't go around paying prostitutes to stick dildoes up your bottom"
As for the naming twitter accounts (and apart from the obvious point that as twitter has no UK presence it can just tell any UK based court to fuck off) with the re-tweeting you will just end up in a kind of "I am Spartacus" moment where the sheer volume of offenders makes it impossible for the courts or the twat who has decided to hide behind a superinjunction rather than man the fuck up and face the consequences of his actions like someone who actually has a pair worth shit enforce what may eventually turn out to be an unenforceable ruling*
But you know what the weirdest thing about all this is? OK then I shall tell you: I know who this person hiding behind a superinjunction is, as do the staff and associates at El Reg and as will the majority of people reading this site - but we can't actually name the worthless prick. It is like some weird Harry-Potteresque "He who must not be named" skit where no-one names the bad guy but everyone knows who the bad guy is, but obviously this guy is worse that Lord Voldemort - he had the manliness to stand up for himself at least.
*the internet frees information - fine the English courts may think they have jurisdiction over the known universe but in reality outside of the EU they have absolutely no powers whatsoever. Within the EU they have pretty much the same but they get to bleat about it a bit more. But I digress - look back at UK history where mass lawbreaking occurred (suffragettes, right to roam, Thatcher's pole-tax, fuel protests etc.) and you will see that very quickly the police stop caring and soon afterwards the laws get changed. After all if big numbers of people care about something enough to go out of their way to do something about it you can bet your cute, taut bottom that they will be bothered enough to reflect this when they next vote; and no politician cares enough about any cause whatsoever to risk losing their seat so the laws inevitably get changed.