[credit provider=”via @sportingintel” url=”http://twitpic.com/50z730″]
Perhaps one our favourite moments of civil disobedience last year was that of British Twitter user’s repeated flouting of the UK’s ridiculous “super-injunction” laws.In case you forgot, the incident largely revolved around the use of “super-injunctions”, granted by the UK’s High court, to prevent newspapers reporting certain cases — the most famous being that of Manchester United star Ryan Giggs, who had been cheating on his wife with reality star Imogan Thomas (and also, as it later emerged, his own brother’s wife).
UK tweeters took to the site to tweet the details of the case, by then widely known. Twitter, being an American company, seemed to be in the clear regarding the user’s actions, partially due to the first amendment. The injunction was one o a number that was abandoned after widespread knowledge left it useless.
Last week, however, Twitter changed its policy, and announced that it will be censoring certain tweets by country if they break that country’s law.
Yes, this may mean an end to Twitter’s role as a place to flout super-injunction rules.
Colin Crowell, Twitter’s head of global public policy, recently told the British Parliamentary Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions that the new rules were not built with any country in mind, and he would need a better knowledge of how injunctions work to know how Twitter would respond, the Telegraph reports.