Social-Media's FOS vs England's "Super-Injunctions"

Twits on Twitter have angered the judicial system in England by revealing information that is under a "Super-Injunction". Even the very mention of there being a "Super-Junction" can result in "...an unlimited fine or even a two-year prison sentence."

Which makes me guilty too I guess... if I were in England or Wales lol
If you are in England or Wales, do not even post the fact that there is a Super-Injunction... you may be fined or imprisoned if you do.
It doesn't exist... it's all in your minnnnnd... lol

The (law) theory is that even on a social-media web-site, everyone should respect (and adhere to?) the laws of England (and Wales), and I would if I were in either of them. But I'm not, I'm in the U.S.A. where freedom of speech outweighs the (extreme) rights to privacy.

IMO, if it's in the legal arena, it's public knowledge, why even bother having these "Super-Injunctions"? The kind of information this law is trying to keep from people is impossible to keep secret forever, so why even bother? England and Wales skip next sentence lol So a soccer player had an affair... who cares ...I mean besides their immediate families? Ok...it's safe now lol Why bother to hide that?

Social-media may eventually cave to these laws, but another site will always be ready to fill-in the gaps anyway... so why bother to regulate this kind of information on them? It's not like someone threatened anyone in any way (those types of posts are definitely a no-no, and are prosecuted in America), the person on Twitter just mentioned his name... why the big deal?

Twitter should be safe from prosecution, they shouldn't be held responsible for everyone's tweats (in fact they are not responsible in America, they are protected by law). As for the person who first tweeted it... it depends ...if he lives in England or Wales, he's (deleted)...lol

 

What is even stupider is that a newspaper in Scotland can print the name of the person involved as can any in Europe or the world LOL Do they actualy believe that people do not travel Any way 2 such cases have been highlighted 1 in the house of Lords were a Peer named a Banker and the other in the house of Commons yesterday when a MP named the footballer involved
Now as you say in reality who gives a hoot about the footballer (not me) ok the news media would have had a run on it for a day or so and then it would have gone away but now it is the most talked about thing over here LOL
The Banker on the other hand was a diffrent issue as the injunction stoped the Financial services Authority from been privledged to certain info about his actions and that was against the public intrest (his bank was bailed out)

 

There's more... Twitter wants to have an office headquartered in England, meaning they (that particular office) would fall under British Law... and would have to comply with that ...thing that cannot be named. I think it's only in the planning stages right now so this whole issue will most likely be resolved before they're up and running, but they will need to have a policy in place where people who use that site (in England) are informed to Shut-It! lol

I also see the law itself may be rewritten, or at least reconsidered, in part because of this ludicrous story. I agree with you that the "hype" the censorship has caused is a bigger story than the footballer's infidelities lol

As for the banker issue, America has some pretty nasty laws itself regarding "insider" knowledge, especially in the Securities trades. Martha Stewart was locked-up for it (The thought of her in prison, knitting hats and scarfs for the other inmates... lol) IMO it goes a bit too far, if I overheard someone saying my million shares of Ex-lax were about to be flushed down the toilet... well, I just don't see why I couldn't use that knowledge to trade up to toilet-paper shares...

...potty humor lol

 

Yep the law as it stands is now under review (thankfuly) but this is the thing with laws until one suddenly see's the absurdity of it it in a modern context it remains on the books, it takes something like this to bring about change
If you take the time to look through the laws of just about any place you will find equaly stupid ones LOL
I can understand having privacy laws but when a person is seen to be some sort of paragon and activly trades on that Image but in private is not quite so squeeky clean then they are fair game Double standards shoudnt apply

 

You need to go back and refresh your memory about Martha. She did not go to jail for "insider" knowledge (it is insider trading, incidentally), but for lying to the authorities.

 

Stewart was sent to prison for perjury, yes... as a direct result of insider knowledge or if you insist, insider trading (though both are acceptable terms for the crime, you use insider knowledge to do insider trading). The point I was making was that she got a tip from her broker (Peter Bacanovic) that saved her a whopping $51,000, hardly the crime of the century. It didn't cause massive problems for Wall Street, stocks didn't crash because of her dump. And yes, if she had done the same thing using her corporation, it would have been worse, both for Wall Street, her company, and herself. It would have fallen under the Sarbanes Oxley act. Sarbanes Oxley was enacted to help restore public confidence in the nation's securities markets after the fiascoes of Enron and others.

So did I misspeak? Slightly... yes, Martha was sentenced under the perjury conviction...but it was the direct result of the insider knowledge she received through her broker.

 

True, there are laws on the books in every city and state in America that are obsolete, but technically enforceable. I just did a search for "obsolete laws in Michigan" and had a ton of hits... here's one link:

Dumb Michigan Laws

The very first one is kinda understandable, "You may not swear in front of women and children in the state of Michigan." I mention it specifically because there was a story a few years ago on the news about a guy in Michigan who was sentenced for the crime. As I recall, he was canoeing and swore a lot (about what I forget) and some women and children heard him. He was arrested and convicted if my memory serves me right. I would do some serious time if I was convicted for all my swears lol

I absolutely loathe the 2nd one, "It is legal for a robber to file a law suit, if he or she got hurt in your house." I've heard stories about thieves who broke their their arm or leg while stealing from people homes... and then filing lawsuits against the home-owners... I can't tell you what I'd do to someone that sued me like that... lol

I'll let you read the site for more insane laws in Michigan lol I like reading these, here's another site with some highlights of America's funnier laws:

Need a laugh? State law books offer comic relief

My memory of the canoeist was incorrect lol, from the site above: "In 1998, for example, a Michigan canoeist faced charges for cursing aloud under a statute enacted in 1897. The obscene-speech law prohibited cussing or using vulgar or insulting language within earshot of women or children. The American Civil Liberties Union took on the canoeist's case, and a Michigan court struck down the law in 2002. In my defense... it was a considerable time ago... and I hadn't heard on the news that it was struck down.

Additional info: The canoeist was found guilty... http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15992 ...but the conviction was thrown out along with the law.

I better tell my boss about this one, he has some property in Nevada: "Forgetting to close a gate in Nevada is against the law."...I'm pretty sure he closes his gates though, he's like that... lol

 

Martha no more went to prison as a direct result of her insider knowledge than Clinton lost his law license for having sex. Neither is in anyway a crime. Lying under oath about it is a crime. The same crime as lying under oath about your name and, hopefully, everyone has one of them.

 

You're arguing over semantics. I used insider knowledge as an anecdote, not as a legal definition. Insider trading usually is illegal, only becoming legal once the information becomes public knowledge.

The information she received from her broker was legal, but she used that information illegally. The judge at her trial eventually threw out the charge of securities fraud siting her crime was in the private domain and not for her public company's advantage (see Sarbanes-Oxley Act for more information). The jury found her guilty on four counts: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements to a federal investigator.

You wrote: "Martha no more went to prison as a direct result of her insider knowledge than Clinton lost his law license for having sex." I disagree. The information she received from her broker was not public knowledge. She committed insider trading by using that private information to reduce her losses in the stock in question (linens lol). That activity led to the perjury charge when she lied under oath to a federal grand jury. As for Clinton... I understand why you'd like to go there, anything to attack a democrat! lol

Any other issue I can help you understand?

 

Well I can only realy go on UK law were insider trading/dealing is a criminal offence therfore one could be convicted as a direct result of having insider knowladge

 

Yeah, in the U.S. having knowledge is legal, using it (before that info becomes public knowledge) is illegal.

I was trying to answer rlm's cents assertion that I was incorrect on an earlier post (#3 ...I used "insider" knowledge and didn't fill-in the gaps as to how it caused Stewart prison time... rlm pointed that out lol)

 

Another recent article relevant to the OP:

BBC News - Could Twitter become a threat to the justice system?

My browsers default is set to the BBC's website, for more local info search Google or something lol.

 

Twitter's European boss has chimed in lol

BBC News - Twitter's European boss warns users may face court


...as well as Zuckerberg & Schmidt...

BBC News - Zuckerberg and Schmidt warn on over-regulation of web

 

The information she received from her broker was legal, but she used that information illegally. The judge at her trial eventually threw out the charge of securities fraud siting her crime was in the private domain and not for her public company's advantage (see Sarbanes-Oxley Act for more information). The jury found her guilty on four counts: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements to a federal investigator

 

I believe I said exactly that, word for word in fact, in post #9... were you trying to reply?