| TWITTER !! 00:33 - Nov 16 with 1067 views | QPR1882 |
Why it's best not to have an account...........
Lord McAlpine and his legal team have warned they have a record of everyone who tweeted or retweeted his name, and could sue them for defaming him.
Twitter says information about its users that is not public will not be revealed unless they are legally required to do so.
Twitter adds that to obtain information that is not public — including the full name of the Twitter user and their address - would require a witness summons, a court order or another valid legal process.
Without any of these, only the Twitter user’s ID — which could be a pseudonym — and any other information they have willing disclosed will be available.
Lord McAlpine could now apply for an order which would enable them to obtain the private details of users who tweeted about him.
Christopher Hutchings, a privacy lawyer, said: ‘In the case of Lord McAlpine, the mere seriousness of the libel would mean applying for a court order would be a straightforward application.’
A list of people who tweeted Lord McAlpine’s name has been collated by third party monitoring firms. These firms aggregate user generated content into a single stream of information.
This enables them to track and monitor what people are saying about a person or in some cases, a company.
While tweets can be deleted, they are recoverable - which means anyone who tweeted Lord McAlpine’s name and subsequently deleted it could still be sued for damages.
According to Twitter, once tweets are made they are immediately sent to a wide range of users and services, including the United States Library of Congress, which archives Tweets for historical purposes.
Earlier this month nine people who illegally named a woman raped by football Ched Evans on Twitter and Facebook were told to pay her £624 each in compensation.
They claimed not to know that identifying a rape victim was a criminal offence.
|  | | |  |
| TWITTER !! on 00:42 - Nov 16 with 1048 views | eastside_r |
There's nothing wrong with freedom of speech and expression, it depends on how you decide to exercise that right.
There is no freedom without responsibility. Please see also the 'Mein Gott' thread. |  | | |
| TWITTER !! on 07:15 - Nov 16 with 965 views | Krakow |
It's ridiculous. How can you be prosecuted for talking about something which had been broadcast on the BBC? Are we now not allowed to talk about anything we see on TV or in the newspapers, just in case they are wrong. |  | | |
| TWITTER !! on 10:27 - Nov 16 with 859 views | derbyhoop |
With both Facebook and Twitter, remember you are effectively sending a postcard to the world. So, don't say anything that you couldn't repeat to somebody's face.
If you retweet/re-post something that is clearly in the public domain, a prosecution would be impossible to prove. Hence, Ryan Giggs and his dalliances. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| TWITTER !! on 10:52 - Nov 16 with 832 views | TW_R |
| TWITTER !! on 07:15 - Nov 16 by Krakow |
It's ridiculous. How can you be prosecuted for talking about something which had been broadcast on the BBC? Are we now not allowed to talk about anything we see on TV or in the newspapers, just in case they are wrong. |
Because at the time it hadn't been broadcast when the tweets were made. If you're making spurious claims about someone in the public domain then expect to be called up on it if the claims are unsubstantiated. It's your responsibility to make sure what you type is correct. If you don't know, then don't do it. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
