Attorney General may 'take action' if anonymity orders are broken

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Readers' comments (11)

  • Some might say that these injunctions themselves are causing "severe damage to the administration of justice". The law should not be used to protect morally repugnant celebrities from facing the consequences of their actions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm still puzzled as to how a Twit can be prosecuted for contempt when they have not been served with the injunction, and cannot even be proved to know that it definitely exists or what its terms are.
    Furthermore, unless the applicant's name is actually known how can any Twit know for a fact that what they are tweeting is in fact in breach of an injunction and not just idle gossip?
    The standard of proof for contempt is the criminal standard, and I don't see how it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Twit actually (a) knew for a fact that there was an injunction covering his tweet; and (2) that he definitely knew the name of the applicant.
    Grieve is just pi**ing in the wind, and he knows it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Judges have not learned the SpyCatcher lesson that you cannot prevent free speech by granting injunctions. It is blowing in the wind and the judicial system ends up appearing to be ineffectual and out of step.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Most people who tweet won't have a clue about the administration of justice, judges, or courts, and especially AGs. Maybe someone will receive a fine or a slap on the wrist, but what the hell... It will be easy to tweet through TOR or a VPN.
    Are ASBOs effective? Have people stopped downloading music in breach of copyright? Do people cross streets on red lights?
    This one is lost and lost and lost..... Hopeless....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Also note the "peddling lies" line: none of the recent cases involved libel. Like the suggestion of issuing injunctions to stop people breaching injunctions, though...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There's a great irony in the above posters, all of whom decry the law not catching up with technology, but hiding their opinions behind the internet safety net of being anonymous or using a made up name.
    The increased use of social media online raises moral and ethical questions about free speech. Freedom of expression is an important value to have, but doing so from behind an anonymous cloak is cowardly. If people are willing to say what they think online, they should be willing to be public with who they are and stand up for what they are saying, rather than hide behind a number of non-identifiable usernames, or worse, anonymous.
    People bang on about free speech, but do not truly believe in it. How many times have users posted views than many find abhorrent, or defamatory? Should they be allowed to express them without any consequence? Just because we can, doesn't always mean we should.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “I’m not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control"
    I don't believe for a second that the LCJ has failed to appreciate the difference between defamation and revealing the truth.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'Tom Fletcher'? Now there's a made up name if ever I heard one!

    At least I've the courage to use my real name.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ....and me

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Et moi aussi

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)