How Twitter is upending British privacy laws

Which Premier League soccer star had an affair with which reality TV star? How did he try to hide it? Did she blackmail him? The British press, by law, couldn't tell you. But if you really want to know, check Twitter.

And what would one find there? It was Manchester United midfielder Ryan Giggs! But with who? Yes! We knew all along! Big Brother star and Welsh model Imogen Thomas! No Way!

In a country where celebrity gossip is as beloved as fish and chips, and no one is as big a celebrity as reality TV stars and mischievous soccer players, this is the stuff of major news.

Now, Britain is in the midst of a raging debate about celebrities' use of "super injunctions," or gag orders, to hide the details of court cases and private affairs after Mr. Giggs and Ms. Thomas were outed on Twitter. The key questions of the debate: Are injunctions overused? Do they put privacy ahead of free speech? And how do they apply in a world where tweets can be anonymous, relentless, and don't abide by British press laws.

Two hours after the first tweet revealing the gossip was posted last month, its tweeter had gone from having four followers to more than 30,000. Two hours after that, interest reached such levels that Twitter broke its traffic record in the country, with 1 in every 200 British Web surfers racing to the site, according to Web measurement firm, Experian Hitwise.

Meanwhile, the traditional newspapers and media outlets – still bound by the super injunctions – could do nothing.

Old media versus new

Feeding the fire of the current debate is the clash between an old way of doing things – where powerful and wealthy public figures, making use of tough libel and privacy laws here, can easily block information about them appearing in the press – and the new way, whereby anonymous Internet users use social media to relay whatever they please.

Whether or not the same laws bind Twitter users as the traditional media remains a question.

Danvers Baillieu, a social media lawyer, says that anyone who tweets or retweets information protected by an injunction is breaking the law.

“But with the anonymity afforded Twitter users, and the phenomenon of retweeting,” he admits, “prosecution would be difficult – if not impossible.”

1 | 2

Next