Injunction Jurisdiction – is Tweeting Whistle-blowing?

A Tweet naming celebrities who have taken out super-injunctions to protect their private lives has given the privacy law debate a new twist; not to mention the debate on the capacity to enforce such local laws in the global internet age.

The social networking site, saying 'freedom of expression is essential', has refused to influence individual accounts despite their potentially breaking the super-injunctions granted by the High Courts. The company has long supported free speech in countries trying to ban it, such as Egypt and Iran, and also refused to act on accounts related to WikiLeaks in the face of US requests.

Twitter stressed that they ‘review accounts that violate Twitter’s terms of service’, such as that all users must protect ‘private and confidential information’ and ‘not use Twitter for unlawful purposes’. Where does that leave breaking a super-injunction?

Conversely, others have claimed that tweets are irrelevant to privacy law and super-injunctions; as the internet is so inundated with speculation and rumour in any case, there is no reason for anyone to take one tweet more seriously than another, and thus they can be calmly ignored. Legally, though, the twitterer, should he/she be tracked down, might still face a prison sentence for contempt of court.

(FT, 10^th May)