Breaking news: The web isn’t beyond the law

 
Twitter logo

A week is a long time on the web, let alone in politics, as the saga of Twitter and the law goes to show.

Last Monday, as the name Ryan Giggs spilled out into the headlines the verdict from the British press and a clutch of web libertarians was clear.

The web had won, new online platforms like Twitter did not obey the same rules as the old media and it was pointless for courts, governments or regulators to try to intervene. But today things look a bit different.

It turns out that Twitter - like other big American web properties - may well be keen to brandish the US Constitution with its first amendment commitment to free speech. But it is also, as an American company, less than eager to defy an American court.

So when a court in California orders the firm to hand over the details of a British account holder in a defamation case, Twitter first informs him, then does as it is told.

As indeed would the likes of Google and Facebook, which receive thousands of demands for user data each year, from law enforcement agencies as well as the courts.

Policing the web

Now, you cannot read through from that incident to the case in which lawyers for Ryan Giggs are trying to obtain details of other Twitter accounts.

Start Quote

As for free speech online, anyone who believed the web was ever a place you could speak your mind without fear of a libel suit does not know their history”

End Quote

They are attempting to apply an English legal device called a Norwich Pharmacal order to an American firm and that is going to be very tricky.

But what we have learned over the 20 years that we've had the web is that while some parts of it are lawless, others are not.

So, for instance, trying to enforce copyright law on file-sharing sites is going to be tricky, as is tracking down malicious hackers based in Russia.

But as web firms grow up and become respectable, they find that they have little choice but to obey the same laws as those fusty old media businesses.

Take YouTube for instance. As a feisty start-up, it could afford to be blase about copyright infringement, as users started to upload all sorts of material they didn't own.

But once it was owned by Google, it had to start to behave like other media firms, taking down anything that might lead to a lawsuit.

As for free speech online, anyone who believed the web was ever a place you could speak your mind without fear of a libel suit does not know their history.

A quick web search turned up this article from 2000, when Demon Internet had to pay out a hefty sum to a man who had allegedly been defamed on newsgroups it hosted. (By the way, have a look at the left of the page to see a reporter who has been on this beat for too long.)

So, over the last week, I think we've discovered that the picture, when it comes to this battle between the courts and the web, between free speech and privacy, is a little more nuanced than it first appeared.

Sure, all sorts of information, true and false, can whizz around the internet at the speed of light.

But that information will prove more powerful when it appears in a place which most people trust - whether that is a newspaper like the Times, a broadcaster like the BBC or even the Facebook or Twitter account of a friend.

And all of those news sources - old and new - are finding that 20th Century laws still apply in a web world.

 
Rory Cellan-Jones, Technology correspondent Article written by Rory Cellan-Jones Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

More on This Story

More from Rory

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 42.

    BluesBerry (31st May 2011 - 14:03)
    "Free speech doesn't protect everything you could write or say e.g. hate messages, racial bigotry..."

    Actually true free speech does protect these things. Too many people these days really do not understand what free speech was and what we've lost.

    And just because I defend the rights of pillocks like the BNP to spout forth does not mean I agree with them.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 41.

    I'm not at all sure how Twitter users could be sued for breaking an injunction when none of us have been served with the injunction - if they want the entire country/world to obey this injunction then they must notify us all. No-one has injuncted me and so I cannot be sure if things I am reading/re-tweeting about RG are mere rumour/speculation or in fact he is the subject of the super-injunction

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 40.

    If Twitter can be prosecuted, then so should MPs who claim Parliamentary Privelege. That is just as bad. They think they are above the law.They should not be.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 39.

    If someone seriously states that believing the web was a place you could use to speak your mind without fear of libel based on a case on Usenet (i.e. not the web) from 2000 then I would suggest it's they who do not know the internet's history, nor what the web even is.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 38.

    I can see "civil disobedience" being tested very quickly. How will they prosecute a few millions people all saying the same thing - perhaps half of them with "disposable" hotmail accounts and going through an IP spoofing gateway.

    I can almost see a new sport popping up - "court baiting"

 

Comments 5 of 42

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.