Celebrities and media outlets have long squabbled over what information should remain private, and which pieces of juicy gossip should be freely splurged throughout the tabloids. Twitter has recently re-written this debate, with its users flouting court-ordered injunctions, and revealing the extra-marital escapades of a certain footballer as well those of many other celebrities. Essentially, we all know some things that legally, we should not, and this is entirely down to the extraordinary networking power of Twitter.

How this is dealt with by authorities could have huge implications for Twitter, which at the moment is widely acknowledged as the medium for breaking news and controversial commentary. Research on Metrica Radar demonstrates that injunctions have been mentioned on Twitter over 2,000 times in the last week – more than 20 times higher than the number of mentions recorded on Facebook.

This all may change though, as the actions of Tyneside Council, who forced Twitter to hand over the personal details of a tweeter who made accusations against them suggest. If this becomes the precedent for dealing with Tweeters who break privacy and libel laws, the platform that Twitter provides for uninhibited commentary could diminish. The Tyneside Council case has sparked outrage in some quarters, many viewing it as a violation on the last bastion of truly free speech on the internet, and indignation that Twitter would betray this principle and sell out its members: “Users were actually appalled by the news that Twitter itself would sell them out at the merest mention of legal action. Yes, just mention the ‘sue’ word and Twitter crumbles, much to the chagrin and distaste of some users”. – wrote one blogger on the subject.

Others take a less romantic view, including The Independent Online, which pointed out that of all the many and varied injunctions taken out, Twitter users have shown interest in revealing only the most sordid, celebrity-centred cases. Twitter’s many thousands of budding Julian Assanges may have to concede The Indie’s view: “What animates anonymous online breaching of injunctions is not so much ‘freedom of speech’ as interest in celebrity”.

Whatever your views are on the moral and cultural validity of recent injuctions, and the right of Tweeters to flout these orders, it seems obvious that Twitter cannot expect to be immune to the rules that govern other media. This is the way the courts have viewed it and it seems that Twitter is, at the moment, above the law only in practice rather than in principle. If the authorities find a way of effectively policing injunctions and other forms of privacy law, then the Twitter that we know could disappear and be replaced by something much more innocuous.

 

Image Copyright Christine Rose