A UK judge has banned Twitter users from identifying a brain-damaged woman in one of the first attempts to prevent the website from revealing sensitive information.

The ruling follows the publication on Twitter of a list of celebrities alleged to have tried to cover up sexual indiscretions by obtaining court gag orders.

The injunction, dated yesterday, includes Twitter and Facebook in the list of media prohibited from disclosing the information.

It was issued in the Court of Protection in the case of a mother who wants to withdraw life support from her brain-damaged daughter. It prevents the identification of the woman and those caring for her.

"This is among the first injunctions specifically referring to Twitter and Facebook, but there have been others banning publication on the internet," said Keith Arrowsmith, intellectual property and media partner at law firm Ralli Solicitors.

Lack of clarity

However, it is unclear how enforceable the injunction will be given the global nature of the internet and the scope for anonymity. Lawyers say plans to protect leaks of information protected by a British injunction on US-based Twitter show that court orders to gag the press are unsustainable.

MP John Hemming, who is compiling a report on the strictest kind of gag orders, called "superinjunctions", said the fact that people can sign up for Twitter or Facebook without verifying identity meant injunctions relied on goodwill.

"They (injunctions) depend really on people's willingness to follow the rules rather than any ability to force it on them," Hemming said.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367342/judg ... ction-list

At the moment anyway, I'm all for private individuals being protected where necessary and possible, but if your image is part of your business (and that's relevant in every sense these days) you're fair game. We'll eventually have new laws or amendments anyway of course...

I think this is a reasonable situation, as there are potential repercussions on the family. Though am surprised the doctors haven't already withdrawn life support. Don't know anything about the case though.

Does anyone actually think that the family will be tweeted? As long as the court decides who can pull the plug then why should the family be victimised? It is not quite the same as any of the super injuiction cases. The family are already facing the death of a family member and people might be much more sympathetic.

Indeed.

However I think the following is more germane to the problem:



Without a way to identify offenders, there's no way to prosecute them.

Totally agree its plain daft.

Also, anyone who doesn't live in the UK can quite genuinely tell all and sundry to piss off, they're not going to be covered by any judgement handed down by a UK court.

Quite. Apparently the English judiciary has learned absolutely nothing from the 'SpyCatcher' debacle.

Jon

I'd almost be tempted to move abroad just to break superinjunctions and stick a massive middle finger up at the judiciary.

In fact it was the government who failed to learn that fact. They guaranteed its success as a book. One thing we brits love is a banned book, just to see what we are missing. It is probably counter productive.