The Twitter storm that saved freedom of speech

But not exactly, not really...


Comment So was it Twitter what won it? Yesterday, in the wake of a flurry of Twitter and blogosphere outrage, the 'super-injunction' banning the Guardian (and, we should note, everybody else) from reporting details of a parliamentary question effectively collapsed. "A few tweets and freedom of speech is restored," the Graun itself said, while Tory blogger Iain Dale claimed: "Let there be no mistake. This would not have happened without the online engagement through various blogs and Twitter which has happened over the last 18 hours or so."

Dale is quite often sensible, but it is a good rule to be suspicious of statements that begin 'let there be no mistake.' And in this case, he is indeed mistaken.

A bit of background first. Media law firm Carter-Ruck had obtained an injunction preventing the Guardian from reporting any details of a parliamentary question about its client Trafigura, tabled by Labour MP Paul Farrelly on Monday. As the Guardian said yesterday: "The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found." An apparently increased readiness among UK judges to grant such sweeping 'super-injunctions' has caused considerable concern among British media in recent times, but this one was one of the most extreme - and ill-advised - on record.

We should note that such injunctions effectively apply to anyone publishing information relating to them in the UK. You might have some defence if you were able to show that you were entirely unaware of the injunction's existence, and had merely published the relevant information by coincidence, but if you knew about the injunction, you published anyway, and what you published was read in the UK, then you were technically in contempt of court. Whether or not those of you not domiciled in the UK and/or whose servers are not in the UK should worry depends on a number of factors. But for the moment we'll just suggest that some of you who're not worried would do well to worry a bit more.

The other factor worth noting about this particular case was that the injunction crossed a line by effectively banning reporting of parliament, and therefore challenged parliamentary privilege. MPs can be sued for what they say outside of parliament, but what they say in parliament, and reporting of what they say, is protected. Farrelly's question had been published in the Commons order papers, and therefore would have been viewed by the media and MPs as absolutely fair game - if it hadn't been for the injunction.

Media lawyers today are puzzling over what the judge could have been thinking when he granted it, and what Carter-Ruck could have been thinking when it applied for it. British MPs are a self-important lot, usually tediously so (when for example they moan about the noise and mess created by Iraq demos in Parliament Square). But when it comes to parliamentary privilege and the reporting of parliamentary proceedings, the self-importance has its uses.

Crossing swords with the blogosphere certainly generates a certain level of fallout which you may or may not be prepared for, but crossing swords with parliamentarians' free speech and freedom to be reported is a lot dumber. With or without the Twitter storm, MPs would not have let this one stand. Carter-Ruck agreed to an amendment to the terms of the injunction which would permit the reporting of the question (but still prohibits reporting of other matters related to Trafigura) shortly before a high court hearing on the matter, but parliamentary concern about secret super-injunctions has been heightened by the case.

The blogosphere has most certainly had an effect in this case, but claims that it is "a historic victory for the power of the Internet" are overblown. Note that there are in existence numerous super-injunctions whose terms and even existence must be kept secret, and very little has leaked out about them on the Internet. Some MPs - notably Paul Farrelly - are concerned, the media are concerned (but generally aren't permitted to be concerned in public), and Private Eye has done some useful campaigning on the subject. But that's about it.

Note also that if such injunctions did not continue to be useful weapons for the legal profession's reputation management section, then they would not continue to be deployed. Yes, if one of them does trigger a blogosphere 'I'm Spartacus!' outbreak and/or a Twitter storm, then everybody can pat themselves on the back afterwards about how the news got out anyway, and how it's completely impossible to tame the Internet and how counter-productive it is to try.

But we repeat, if this is such a stupid thing to do, why do they keep doing it? And why do clients keep paying them large quantities of money to do it? The point here is that in general, those concerned do not care massively about entirely suppressing information. They probably would if they could, but they know they can't, so they confine themselves to keeping a lid on it in higher profile outlets, and generally this works fine from their point of view.

In this particular case it clearly didn't, and the worldwide publicity won't have helped the reputation of Carter-Ruck, its client or indeed Carter-Ruck's reputation for effective reputation management. But lawyers will still apply for and get super-injunctions, and this will go on until such time as parliament curbs their power. Free speech is only going to be saved when it has been saved for everybody, not just for the bloggers too small to bother with. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Meet Wizard Spider, the multimillion-dollar gang behind Conti, Ryuk malware
    Russia-linked crime-as-a-service crew is rich, professional – and investing in R&D

    Analysis Wizard Spider, the Russia-linked crew behind high-profile malware Conti, Ryuk and Trickbot, has grown over the past five years into a multimillion-dollar organization that has built a corporate-like operating model, a year-long study has found.

    In a technical report this week, the folks at Prodaft, which has been tracking the cybercrime gang since 2021, outlined its own findings on Wizard Spider, supplemented by info that leaked about the Conti operation in February after the crooks publicly sided with Russia during the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

    What Prodaft found was a gang sitting on assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars funneled from multiple sophisticated malware variants. Wizard Spider, we're told, runs as a business with a complex network of subgroups and teams that target specific types of software, and has associations with other well-known miscreants, including those behind REvil and Qbot (also known as Qakbot or Pinkslipbot).

    Continue reading
  • Supreme Court urged to halt 'unconstitutional' Texas content-no-moderation law
    Everyone's entitled to a viewpoint but what's your viewpoint on what exactly is and isn't a viewpoint?

    A coalition of advocacy groups on Tuesday asked the US Supreme Court to block Texas' social media law HB 20 after the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last week lifted a preliminary injunction that had kept it from taking effect.

    The Lone Star State law, which forbids large social media platforms from moderating content that's "lawful-but-awful," as advocacy group the Center for Democracy and Technology puts it, was approved last September by Governor Greg Abbott (R). It was immediately challenged in court and the judge hearing the case imposed a preliminary injunction, preventing the legislation from being enforced, on the basis that the trade groups opposing it – NetChoice and CCIA – were likely to prevail.

    But that injunction was lifted on appeal. That case continues to be litigated, but thanks to the Fifth Circuit, HB 20 can be enforced even as its constitutionality remains in dispute.

    Continue reading
  • How these crooks backdoor online shops and siphon victims' credit card info
    FBI and co blow lid off latest PHP tampering scam

    The FBI and its friends have warned businesses of crooks scraping people's credit-card details from tampered payment pages on compromised websites.

    It's an age-old problem: someone breaks into your online store and alters the code so that as your customers enter their info, copies of their data is siphoned to fraudsters to exploit. The Feds this week have detailed one such effort that reared its head lately.

    As early as September 2020, we're told, miscreants compromised at least one American company's vulnerable website from three IP addresses: 80[.]249.207.19, 80[.]82.64.211 and 80[.]249.206.197. The intruders modified the web script TempOrders.php in an attempt to inject malicious code into the checkout.php page.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022