Why should Americans to Liverpool on a legal battle in Britain involving Twitter and English courts?
Well, on the one hand, our interconnected world, depends on the Web, what inevitably tugs in a string of new-tech overseas throw something in American society.
And in this case, it's pulling in a lot of things: the first amendment. Based in San Francisco at Corp., which operates on Twitter. and the Act of OMILiAS, enacted by the Congress in 2010 for the protection of corporations and individuals in the us by anti-free speech and free press anti-spam laws and Court orders in other Nations.
The controversy that begins with a British legal device called a "super-injunction," which bars any means new reporting on any aspect of a particular importance – even reference that there is such a judgement.
In this case, a well-known soccer player, he married obtained super-injunction not gossipy reports about a rumored affair with a reality-TV star. Although the commands have been observed by the traditional news outlet, in this case has been reported that thousands of Twitter, Facebook and other social-media users have ignored the ban. Rider and posting photos.
These posts and tweets continue age information blur the definition of "touch" between traditional news organizations and individuals who post news online.
Last week, the player is granted a series of British High Court demanding that Twitter will reveal the names of anonymous posters who have sent messages about the case. But there any real Twitter office in Britain to serve the request.
If there is an attempt to get a u.s. Court for the implementation of the action, then Twitter probably could cite first amendment protections for press freedom and the practice of OMILiAS, and a legal device called a section 230 – the only remaining part of a law called the Communications Decency Act – guards such ISPs from liability for the material posted on the sites by others.
There are more-serious issues raised by such situations, than an attempt to avoid athlete public embarrassment: the definition of who is a journalist, the public's right to hold the system accountable and even the ability of social-network users in repressive Nations to remain anonymousas organizing efforts at democratic reform.
As the Twitter front rage Britain, Syrian Government officials seeking the identities of users on Facebook and Twitter rebellious and employing tactics such as shutting down unsuccessfully in Internet access and even electricity to neighborhoods where protests, centered.
Eventually, democracies and despots must face the reality that the World Wide Web and instant, global reach has outfoxed the laws and practices that exclude once news and information.
Not as if the lesson has not been taught before. Canadian law has for years provided a blanket bans on sensational news criminal proceedings until a verdict. However, the courts are powerless to prevent reports of U.S. television stations in cities such as Buffalo, Detroit and in the Northwest where station signals travel along the border.
Then there is the ongoing irony that trying to stop reporting on something that often causes further references based on that.
British Culture Minister said recently that Web users was paramorfwnoyn the British law, complaining of an "unfortunate and unsustainable situation where newspapers cannot print things that are freely available on the Internet."
In the irreverent sports site Deadspin news firmly put his own spin on this topic titled: "completely anonymous Twitter Soccer Player Sues for saying Ryan Giggs had an affair".
Gene Policinski, Senior Vice President and Executive Director of the Center for first amendment, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
No comments:
Post a Comment