Posts Tagged ‘United Kingdom’

UK Bans Warns of Criminal Charges for Using Social Media to Discuss 25-Year-Old Soccer Tragedy

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2014
Persons scramble away from the human crush in the stadium

From television coverage of the game in 1989.

In the United Kingdom, there is a new example of that country’s sometimes surprising limitations on free speech.

The UK Attorney General is warning people that they might be held in criminal contempt for using social media to discuss the 1989 Hillsborough soccer tragedy. That disaster resulted in 96 deaths when people were crushed in an overcrowded stadium to watch a match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest.

The notice reads:

Editors, publishers and social media users should note that the inquest proceedings are currently active for the purpose of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The Attorney General wishes to draw attention to the risk of publishing material, including online, which could create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the inquests may be seriously impeded or prejudiced, particularly as this inquest involves a jury.

This risk could arise by commentary which may prejudge issues that witnesses may give evidence about, or matters that the jury will need to consider in reaching their verdict. The inquests could also be prejudiced by publishing details of material (whatever its source) which may not form part of the evidence at the inquest.

The Attorney General’s Office will be monitoring the coverage of these proceedings.

This spring marks the 25th anniversary of the disaster, so naturally people want to talk about it. But just at this moment, the British government squelched discussion with heavy-handed criminal laws. That seems extremely regrettable to me.

An ESPN documentary on the tragedy is currently banned from being distributed in the UK. The director told Sports Illustrated:

Because the new inquest has started just two weeks ago, it can’t be shown in the UK until the jury delivers its verdict. Which is a year from now. I really want it to be shown now. You want it to have the impact now, but you can’t. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, the conversation a year from now will be a different one than could be had now. So it’s not just delaying speech, it is destroying speech.

Previously I’ve discussed how in the UK using social media can quite easily subject someone to possible jail time or draconian civil liability.

And here’s another example of the UK banning speech related to soccer:

City of London Police Hijacking Websites Without Court Orders

Thursday, October 10th, 2013

Some scary news out of London. The City of London Police has a new Intellectual Property Crimes Unit, and they are demanding – without a court order – that domain registrars shut down websites and redirect traffic to commercial websites that seem to be affiliated with the companies that made the triggering complaints to the police.

EasyDNS’s Mark Jeftovic – one recipient of these demands – is fighting back. He’s posted Whatever Happened to “Due Process” ? on EasyDNS’s blog.

Among the good points he makes:

Who decides what is illegal? What makes somebody a criminal? Given that the subtext of the request contains a threat to refer the matter to ICANN if we don’t play along, this is a non-trivial question. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought it was something that gets decided in a court of law, as opposed to “some guy on the internet” sending emails. While that’s plenty reason enough for some registrars to take down domain names, it doesn’t fly here.

We have an obligation to our customers and we are bound by our Registrar Accreditation Agreements not to make arbitrary changes to our customers settings without a valid FOA (Form of Authorization). To supersede that we need a legal basis. To get a legal basis something has to happen in court.

(Emphasis and links omitted.) He also makes this point:

What gets me about all of this is that the largest, most egregious perpetrators of online criminal activity right now are our own governments, spying on their own citizens, illegally wiretapping our own private communications and nobody cares, nobody will answer for it, it’s just an out-of-scope conversation that is expected to blend into the overall background malaise of our ever increasing serfdom.

By the way, the City of London Police is the smaller of two police forces in London. The other is the Metropolitan Police. The City police are responsible for the smaller and older portion of London that is referred to as “the City,” which includes the center of the finance/banking industry as well as many of the major law firms. The Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, and most of the rest of what you think of as London is outside the City and under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police.

More:

UK Court Rules 7-Word Tweet Libeled Lord

Tuesday, June 4th, 2013

Gavel coming down on twitter bird, combined with British flagLord Robert Alistair McAlpine was libeled by a tweet from Sally Bercow, the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, according to a May 24, 2013 decision of UK’s High Court of Justice.

With a question of damages still pending, the parties terminated the litigation with a settlement on undisclosed terms.

Eric P. Robinson blogged that the case “shows — if anyone still had doubts — that tweets can indeed be libelous.”

“In short — appropriate for Twitter — a libel is a libel, no matter how few characters it contains,” Robinson concluded.

A BBC report in 2012 about alleged sexual abuse in a Welsh foster-care home in the 1970s and 80s communicated an allegation by a victim that one of the abusers was a leading Tory politician, but no particular person was named. Social media speculation following the BBC report then centered around Lord McAlpine.

Then came the libelous tweet from Bercow:

Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*

It turns out Lord McAlpine was not an abuser. The ensuing scandal led to the resignation of the head of the BBC.

It appears Sally Bercow abandoned Twitter.

The case is a good example of how defamation can happen indirectly, and by implication. It also provides a good point of contrast with American law – UK law on libel is much stricter and not subject to the strong protections that we have under the First Amendment on this side of the Pond.

For a full unpacking of the facts and law, read Robinson’s thorough post on Blog Law Online.

London Tweeting: The Crown Prosecution Service Talks Twitter

Thursday, May 10th, 2012

Flag of the U.K.A worthwhile article from the U.K.:

Social media and the law – How to stay out of trouble when using Twitter and Facebook

The story points up the many differences between the U.S. and U.K. when it comes to freedom of speech. Tweeting can quite easily constitute a crime in the UK, whereas the First Amendment in the U.S. makes it near to impossible to go to jail for a tweet.

Frank Ferguson, district crown prosecutor from Norfolk County in the East of England, identifies three types of social-media crime cases:

“Firstly, where people have committed an offence through abusing or bullying someone else, so that could be harassment or racism.

“Then we have the types of postings where the message results in an offence, such as someone is having a party, thousands turn up and criminal acts follow at that party.

“Thirdly we have seen many cases where someone has committed and offence and then goes on to social media to brag about what they have done. This is an example where it can help us to track someone down.”

Not that the first category of speech – with more – can’t constitute a crime in the U.S. because of the broad application of the First Amendment.

Also, as discussed in the article, a civil libel case in the U.K. can ruin a defendant - especially if the plaintiff is wealthy and the defendant lacks resources. It’s not just the judgment, it’s the U.K.’s loser-pays-the-attorneys-fees rule. In the U.S., with everyone bearing their own legal costs, plus with the First Amendment hurdles to libel actions, the specter of civil libel liability is much lower.

UK Anti-Terrorism Law Invoked Against Dad Who FB’d Photo of Daughter Eating Ice Cream in Mall

Tuesday, October 11th, 2011

Four-year-old girl eating ice cream on a seat fashioned like a pink Vespa scooter

The face of terrorism? (Photo: Chris White)

Chris White used his cell phone to take the adorable photo at right of his 4-year-old daughter eating ice cream in the Braehead Shopping Centre in Glasgow, Scotland. And with that, Mr. White took his fateful step toward becoming a terrorist – or so it would seem in the view of authorities who then swooped down on him.

To be entirely frank, I would understand authorities accusing me of terrorism for bringing my 3- and 6-year-old boys into a shopping mall. They go berserk in public spaces. Generally, you can’t capture a non-blurry photo of my boys with a cell phone – they move too fast. Often they are moving fast in a way that constitutes an immediate threat to property and person. But this photo of Chris White’s daughter seems to me to have nothing-to-do-with-terrorism written all over it.

I will let Mr. White explain what happened in his own words:

Walking down the shopping mall a man approached me from behind as I was carrying my daughter in my arms. He came from behind me, cutting in front of me and told me to stop. That was quite a shock as I am wary of people with crew cuts and white shirts suddenly appearing in front of me [Me too. –EEJ], but then realised he was a security guard. He then said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was ‘illegal’ and not allowed and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken. I explained I had taken 2 photos of my daughter eating ice cream and that she was the only person in the photo so didn’t see any problem. i also said that I wasn’t that willing to delete the photo’s and there seemed little point as I had actually uploaded them to facebook. He then said i would have to stay right where I was while he called the police …

The older police officer … said that there had been a complaint about me taking photos and that there were clear signs in Braehead shopping centre saying that no photographs were allowed. I tried to explain that I hadn’t seen any clearly displayed signs and that I had taken 2 photos of my daughter. … He then said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone without any explanation for taking photos within a public shopping centre[.] … He then said on this occasion he would allow me to keep the photos, but he wanted to take my full details. Name, place of birth, age, employment status, address. … The police officer also said that the security guard was within his rights to now ask me to leave Braehead Shopping Centre and bar me from the premises which I was happy to oblige.

The UK Prevention of Terrorism Act apparently allows the UK’s Home Secretary or a court to issue a “control order” that can restrict a terrorist suspect’s liberty in various ways, including prohibiting the person from possessing a mobile phone. I don’t see in the act where it allows a police officer to exercise that power on the spot when confronting a person the officer believes to be a suspect. But maybe someone who understands UK law better can chime in on that.

Well, after Mr. White started a Facebook page called Boycott Braehead, the story was picked up by the BBC, and within hours the management of Braehead was apologizing and announcing a change in policy so that people will be able to take photos of friends and family. They are also saying they will implement the change at all 11 centers owned by the same company.

Meanwhile, the Boycott Braehead page has 22,381 likes. Check that: 22,475. (It’s going up as I write this.) Now it’s 22,498.

More:

UK Soccer Star Ryan Giggs Sues Twitter and Tweeters Over Super-Injunction

Monday, May 23rd, 2011
Ryan Griggs, soccer player, standing on field

UK soccer star and super-injunction taker-outer, Ryan Griggs (Photo: Allison Pasciuto, CC-BY 2.0)

A soccer player who is famous in the United Kingdom, Ryan Giggs, apparently obtained a “super-injunction” to force the press to not reveal his name in connection with ongoing litigation involving an extra-marital affair he allegedly had with UK reality-television star Imogen Thomas. He has now apparently sued Twitter and Twitter users for revealing his identity.

The so-called super-injunction is one that not only gags the press and others with regard to the sensitive subject matter (such as allegations of an extra-marital affair), but also prohibits the press from even reporting about the injunction itself, thus shielding the identity of the person who took out the super-injunciton.

As your author of Blog Law Blog, based in the United States, I am confident that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects my ability to identify the person. And regardless, free-speech sufficient to discuss the use and potential over-use of judicial power ought to be considered a universal human right.

I actually looked through several news stories looking for the athlete’s name. All the sites I read, all of which were UK-based, were very cheeky, refusing to name Griggs, but dropping lots of hints, implying that the reader must then know who it was.

I’m sorry, but for me, on this side of the pond, if it’s not David Beckham, then I’m not going to know who it is unless you give me a name.

I eventually was able to get Griggs’s name through Google’s auto-complete feature, by typing in “superinjunction footballer …”

And now Griggs is suing Twitter, which was apparently where his identity broke.

Good luck with that, buddy. You’ll need it.

Twitter, based in San Francisco, U.S.A., has not only the First Amendment protecting it, but also the super-safe-harbor of section 230.

And now, here’s my commentary on the law: The super-injunction is a rank abuse of judicial power. It’s especially disappointing, to me, since the United Kingdom is one of the few countries on Earth that places the sort of premium on free speech that the United States does.

Imogen Thomas, Griggs’s ex-squeeze, who has been accused of blackmail in this whole thing, had this to say in the UK’s Daily Mail, which I think shows quite nicely what is wrong with the super-injunction as a legal institution:

“Yet again my name and my reputation are being trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.

“What’s more, I can’t even defend myself because I have been gagged. Where’s the fairness in that? What about my reputation?

“If this is the way privacy injunctions are supposed to work then there’s something seriously wrong with the law.”

Irish Defamation Law Compared with the UK’s New Reform Effort

Thursday, March 17th, 2011
Irish countryside and ruins of old farm house

The Irish countryside (Photo: CIA)

Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

In a nod to Éire, let me point you to a blog post by Trinity College law faculty member Dr. Eoin O’Dell (@cearta). He’s done a post at cearta.ie comparing a bill that would reform the UK’s much maligned libel law with Ireland’s recent statutory reform, the Defamation Act of 2009. Some differences are subtle. Others – such as the right to a jury in Ireland and the lack of such a right in the British bill – are not so subtle.

The whole idea of wrapping defamation law into a statute is pretty foreign to me. In the United States, defamation law is still almost entirely a matter of common law, with a huge heap of common-lawesque constitutional law thrown in on top. That adds up to a highly complex landscape of American defamation law across our 50-state system. As a law professor, however, I should confess that that makes it comparatively easy to teach. There are few questions that students can ask that I can’t answer honestly with, “It varies by jurisdiction.”

Cricketer’s Twitter Libel Suit Sustained

Monday, March 14th, 2011

A court in the United Kingdom has rebuffed an attempt to throw out a Twitter libel suit brought by a New Zealander cricket player.

Cricketer Chris Cairns of New Zealand, a right-handed allrounder, alleged that cricket administrator Lalit Modi libeled him with a tweet about match fixing.

Modi’s attempt to have the case dismissed was based on the argument that so few people saw the allegedly libelous tweet, that it would be a waste of court resources. The court did not agree, saying in its decision,

A claimant’s primary concern in a libel action is vindication, not damages for what has been suffered in the past. So the damage that has occurred before the action is brought may not give an indication of the importance of the claim. Vindication includes a retraction, or a verdict for the claimant, or a judgment to the effect that the allegation complained of is false.

The Pinsent Masons law firm discusses the decision on their Out-Law blog.

UK’s Advertising Standards Authority Eyeing Websites for Enforcement

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

Union Jack - flag of the United KingdomI love listening to radio stations abroad via the internet. I quite commonly listen to Capital 95.8 FM out of London. In addition to helping me get ready for the royal wedding (Lily Allen on June 11h, of course!) I’ve also learned something relevant to blog law.

A public service announcement from the United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority was letting listeners know that beginning March 1, 2011, the ASA’s jurisdiction in cyberspace is expanding. The ASA’s mandate will now include advertiser’s own websites, instead of just the per-se paid-for-placement adverts that try to draw consumers to the advertiser’s websites.

So if you’re blogging to market your own products or services in the UK, then straighten up and fly right. If you’ve got a commercially oriented blog and you have UK connections, read up on what the ASA is up to.

Image: EEJ (Konomarked flag photos on Flickr.)

Fired Lawyer and Sex Blogger Sues Allen & Overy

Monday, December 20th, 2010

From the homepage of self-described "naked poet," Deidre Dare (a/k/a Deidre Clark)

Deidre Clark was fired from the Moscow office of London-based law firm Allen & Overy after it came to light that she was behind the online identity of Deidre Dare (NSFW).

Clark, a lawyer from New York, blogged about her sex life and penned an online book, Expat, about sex and drugs in the Russian capital, which she said was based on her own experiences at A&O.

Word from A&O is that Expat used names of A&O employees and even the name of a client.

In addition to her book, Clark’s website contains poetry, philosophical musings, and a set of boudoir photos of herself. Let me warn you: Her whole site should be considered NSFWUYHTEOBALP (Not Safe For Work Unless You Have The Excuse Of Being A Law Professor).

She is now suing her former employer for wrongful termination, seeking more than $5 million in damages.

I don’t know much about British or Russian employment law, but my thought would be, good luck with that!

Guardian: Kamarudin Blogs On About Malaysia From His London Safe Haven

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Flag of MalaysiaBen Bland in the UK’s Guardian: Malaysian blogger continues attacks from his UK base

The story concerns blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, who fled Malaysia after learning that he might face further criminal prosecution for his blogging. The current charges are sedition and defamation.

(Ha’p Media Law Prof Blog)

UK Politician Complaint Against Blogger Decided for Blogger

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Media Law Prof Blog on the UK’s Press Complaints Commission’s negative decision on politician Viscount Monckton’s complaint against a blogger.