Facebook and Twitter Hit With Injunction Ruling

The British High Court has hit two American websites, Facebook and Twitter, with an injunction order that prevents them publishing damaging information online.

Mr Justice Baker in the Court of Protection, which is associated with the family division of the High Court, issued the injunction which specifically mentions Twitter and Facebook for the first time.

The injunction effectively bans Facebook and Twitter from revealing the identity of a mother who is seeking to withdraw life support from her brain-damaged daughter. According to the Daily Telegraph, the order also prevents reporters from going within 164 foot (50 metres) of the woman’s care home without permission.

It also bans reporters from contacting the carers and relatives in this case.

UK Ruling, US Companies

The wording of the injunction is interesting as it bans the publication of information which could lead to the identification of the woman in “any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, internet site, social network or media including Twitter or Facebook, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service”.

The ruling comes as a lone Twitter user earlier this week used the microblogging website to flout British privacy laws by tweeting a list of celebrities who – it was claimed – had taken out so-called “super-injunctions.”

That leak was apparently designed to discredit the trend for celebrities who take out injunctions to protect their privacy.  However, the list seemed to be inaccurate, as a number of celebrities, including socialite Jemima Khan and TV presenter Gabby Logan, denied they had issued any injunctions.

But these injunctions are facing fierce criticism. “They are like King Canute, the tide will keep coming in no matter what they do,” free speech campaigner John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP , was quoted as saying in the Telegraph. “The problem the courts have is Twitter is not registered in the UK and is therefore outside British jurisdiction.”

“What they are saying is unrealistic. This is about life and death and I don’t think it’s acceptable, there is a real issue with transparency. The Court of Protection operates in a bubble – it’s out of touch with the real world,” said Hemming.

Tragic Case

Whatever the reasons for the injunction, the case this injunction applies to is a tragic tale indeed.

According to reports, the brain-damaged daughter, who can only be referred to as ‘M’, is actually a 43-year-old woman. In 2003 she suffered from swelling of the brain stem which apparently caused serious damage and wasting to her brain. She has been in a state of minimal consciousness ever since.

Despite this, the injunction will remain something of a test case for the British courts as they seek to adjust to the impact of sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Both of these companies are head quartered in the United States, where the right to free speech is enshrined in their constitution.

It is thought that a British citizen breaking the injunction on a social network could technically be found guilty, but the question remains what will happen if the poster is an American citizen?