http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/352108/high ... ia-twitter
I'm kinda wondering how that could be legally enforceable if there was an argument over 'continued abuse' etc - what happens if for some reason he didn't open up that Twitter account again, but carried on with a new one? Do they have to issue another writ cos he hasn't technically been notified?
 | | |
| Quote: Matthew Richardson, the barrister who won the injunction, claims the ruling was a huge step forward in preventing anonymous abuse of the internet. "People have to learn that they can no longer hide behind the cloak of anonymity the internet provides and break the law with impunity," he says. | |
| | |
The 'cloak of anonymity' the internet provides has often been a good thing, and the law is often an ass as the saying goes, so it's swings and roundabouts as far as I'm concerned...
