Twitter and unnamed Twitterers sued by anonymous man
'CTB' in bid to muzzle microblog
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
Twitter and certain Twitter users have been sued in the High Court in London by an individual referred to only by the initials "CTB".
The initials are meant to maintain the anonymity of the individual, but the same initials were used in a previous suit brought by a professional footballer in the UK who has won a so-called "super injunction" that bars the media from publishing stories about an affair he allegedly had with a reality TV star, the Financial Times reports.
The suit was filed against Twitter on May 18, and it also names “persons unknown responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts”. Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
On May 8, an anonymous Twitter user posted six messages to the micro-blogging service listing several UK celebrities who have allegedly won super injunctions banning the media from reporting on certain actions. The posts also claimed to reveal these actions. This Twitter account has gained more than 110,000 "followers".
A day later, on May 9, an official Twitter company account used to send messages to the press mentioned – and linked to – the account that revealed the alleged super injunctions. This account is still active, and its six messages are still available.
Naming the account could be problematic for some publications – including The Register – because of the super-injunction won by CTB. Twitter has long been a proponent of online free speech, and it does not yet have a UK presence.
Many Twitter users have repeated the information posted by this account in an effort to push it to the top of Twitter "trending topics". Some users claim that Twitter has prevented this from happening.
It would appear that the CTB lawsuit names multiple unnamed Twitter users because so many users are repeating the information posted to the original account. Those repeating the rumors may number in the tens of thousands. ®
COMMENTS
Personally I agree with the expert on Sky News
Who said something like:
"If you don't want your name sullied in the papers then don't go around paying prostitutes to stick dildoes up your bottom"
As for the naming twitter accounts (and apart from the obvious point that as twitter has no UK presence it can just tell any UK based court to fuck off) with the re-tweeting you will just end up in a kind of "I am Spartacus" moment where the sheer volume of offenders makes it impossible for the courts or the twat who has decided to hide behind a superinjunction rather than man the fuck up and face the consequences of his actions like someone who actually has a pair worth shit enforce what may eventually turn out to be an unenforceable ruling*
But you know what the weirdest thing about all this is? OK then I shall tell you: I know who this person hiding behind a superinjunction is, as do the staff and associates at El Reg and as will the majority of people reading this site - but we can't actually name the worthless prick. It is like some weird Harry-Potteresque "He who must not be named" skit where no-one names the bad guy but everyone knows who the bad guy is, but obviously this guy is worse that Lord Voldemort - he had the manliness to stand up for himself at least.
*the internet frees information - fine the English courts may think they have jurisdiction over the known universe but in reality outside of the EU they have absolutely no powers whatsoever. Within the EU they have pretty much the same but they get to bleat about it a bit more. But I digress - look back at UK history where mass lawbreaking occurred (suffragettes, right to roam, Thatcher's pole-tax, fuel protests etc.) and you will see that very quickly the police stop caring and soon afterwards the laws get changed. After all if big numbers of people care about something enough to go out of their way to do something about it you can bet your cute, taut bottom that they will be bothered enough to reflect this when they next vote; and no politician cares enough about any cause whatsoever to risk losing their seat so the laws inevitably get changed.
I wonder
Is this anonymous person suing these anonymous people because he thinks this will help him remain anonymous?
If he does think this, he should look himself up on the internet. It's no secret. Does he intend to sue Google, Yahoo!, Bing and the like?
Ignorance of the law is compulsory
Hang on, so people are being sued for breaking an injunction that they are not allowed to know the contents of? Err ...
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
