Friday, May 20, 2011

Tweeters are akin to Paedophiles

Judges and lawyers and commentators are all over the place. Take these recent comments on Twittering and gossiping injunction tittle tattle:

One commentator on Sky has likened Tweeters who out injunction parties as being like Paedophiles:

"Remember what happened with child pornography on the internet? It is now possible for the police to track down people who have access to child pornography. Don't assume it won't be possible to get some greater control over Twitter and the internet."

This Judge thinks Tweeters should be hounded down:

"I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through technology may not one day be brought under control." Lord Judge (telegraph)

This lawyer thinks Tweeters should spend time in prison:

"The person [@InjunctionSuper on Twitter] who has committed this contempt of court will be best advised to take their toothbrush because they will probably be going to Pentonville jail" Lawyer Mark Stephens (independent)

This judge states the bleeding obvious:

"Anybody can put anything on it," Lord Neuberger said of Twitter. (metro)

And then states we should all go back to quill pens and paper:

"Modern technology is totally out of control"


  1. Mark Stephens saying that someone "will probably be going to Pentonville jail" is not the same as him - as you put it - "thinks that Tweeters should spend time in prison"...

  2. Tweeters that tell lies should be tracked down and dealt with in the courts. The onus and costs involved would be initially down to the person asking for the injunction in the first place, then if successfully finding someone who has knowingly ignored a anonimity order try and recover the costs in court. How does this fit with someone repeating the Truth which has been published abroad ? Can't see it myself unless Injuries4U/Costs4Me lawyers start chasing.

  3. Not much changed since the '30s when the British people were the last to know their king was bonking an American divorcee. British obsession with secrecy is a national disease.

  4. +1 D-Notice. Stating a fact does not imply that one agrees with it. I'm beginning to think this blog is shilling for the press rather than extolling honestly-held beliefs.

    jojoko: "BREAKING NEWS - MAN HAS SEX WITH WOMAN" Do you find this shocking? Would you prefer that the King stuck to bonking British divorcees, or maybe American spinsters? Is it any of your business?

  5. but it is not necessarily `lies' is it? why should I go to prison because I gossiped about a rich man who cheated on his wife, those are facts. He is the one who is morally wrong.

  6. It doesn't matter if it is a footballer with his pants down or a business killing children in Africa. Once the state can lock you up, and deny they have done it (otherwise people might know what you did 'wrong') we have a police state / justice gone mad. Beware, this is a slippery slope. YOU could be next!

  7. "but it is not necessarily `lies' is it?"

    That decision is for the judge to make when it comes to trial, not you.