Talk:CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Naming

He has been named abroad - http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=forbes+he+who+cannot+be+named&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= - does that mean he can now be identified on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.235.113 (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions Giggs by name. This is in response to foreign media coverage, and as such is not a breach of the super-injunction, which applies in the UK courts only. The legal consensus is that any action in a US court would almost certainly be rejected on First Amendment grounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

BUT do we have a legal consensus to say that the High Court in England will not argue that this page should not have been made available to people within that Court's jurisdiction, irrespective of the legal consensus on what a US court might say? Do we have legal consensus that the dissemination by this Encyclopaedia to readers in England and Wales of information subject to an injunction in that jurisdiction cannot be challenged because the website of this Encyclopaedia is hosted outside that jurisdiction? I am staggered that it can be claimed that there is no breach of the super-injunction without further treatment of these questions. Francobriton (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Something similar to this happened before with Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber and the Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is hosted on server computers in Florida, it is primarily concerned about Florida law. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that its content will not displease other jurisdictions, and any action against it would be under US law (where First Amendment protection applies), not the law of the country that complained.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My questions focussed on the legal consensus on this set of facts. It is not clear that there is such consensus. It is not the case that "Any action against it would be under US law" since an action in English law may be brought in the English courts against a foreign defendant, if permission is given to the claimant serve out of the English jurisdiction. Neither of the above examples would show a precedent for how the High Court in England would approach this matter. The hosting of pages in Florida means that the laws of Florida are relevant. The First Amendment to the US Constitution is something that needs to be recognised in relation to the freedom to ignore the super-injunction outside of England. That Wikipedia "cannot guarantee" something is immaterial if English law demands that something, when considering the legality of the availability in England of the material which defies the judgement of the English court. Francobriton (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To some extent we are in uncharted waters, and the article Gossip frenzy! And the law is left looking an ass has a good set of FAQ. On a scale of legal fiascos from 1 to 10, this must now rank as a 10. This could never have happened in the USA where First Amendment protection would have applied from the start.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 01:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unchartered waters they may be, but one thing is sure: repetition ad nauseam that the US Constitution was amended to ensure freedom of speech will not help one iota to arrive at a solution to this "fiasco". If the answers genuinely aren't clear then it's best that we avoid claims that the super-injunction has not been broken by material posted here. Francobriton (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo also mentions the First Amendment here. This has become a key issue for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 01:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be so cut and dried in the United States? Privacy laws of the United States doesn't suggest it would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.27.27 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge cultural gap here in more ways than one. The US media never reported the extra-marital affairs of John F. Kennedy at the time, although they were common knowledge among journalists. The UK tabloid press is obsessed with "tit and bum" stories, and has reacted furiously to attempts to use Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to suppress them. What matters here is that Jimbo has said that legal fishing expeditions from the UK courts on this issue would be rejected, as long as the material was reliably sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news

If, as looks likely this falls apart on Monday should we nominate it for Wikipedia:In the news VERTott 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Already here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

May 23

I have added this to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#May_23 comments would be welcome. VERTott 22:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra sources

I've been trying to work the original Imogen Thomas article from The Sun into the background section (link) as this element is currently omitted, but I can't seem to phrase it right. There's coverage of it in this BBC article too. Any thoughts on how to word it? doomgaze (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "She's a model and she's looking good, I'd like to take her home that's understood"? No, seriously, this should be in the article as it is a teaser trailer for what The Sun wanted to publish but could not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus it was the threat of this article that was the trigger for the first temp injunctions taken out by Mr Giggs (which should be in the background section too). Great song by the way. doomgaze (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB)

Since concerns have been expressed about how this type of situation affects Wikipedia, it is worth looking at G and G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc [2009] EWHC 3148 (QB)[1][2] in which Mr Justice Tugendhat was the presiding judge. The claimant requested the IP address of a Wikipedia editor using a Norwich Pharmacal Order. In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation was considered to be the "innocent third party" involved. The court records say: "The Respondent did not appear and was not represented". The WMF was the respondent, and this is what the judge said: "There has been an exchange of letters and e-mails between lawyers for the Applicants and for the Respondent. The Respondent indicated that it would not disclose the IP information without a court order being made, but neither would it oppose the making of an order requiring such disclosure. It gave no indication that it required anonymity for itself, and I could see no grounds for giving anonymity to it."

Recently on his talk page, Jimmy Wales said: "As I am neither a lawyer nor staff of the Foundation, I can't speak for them. However, as someone able to closely observe the general opinions of the board and staff and legal team of the Foundation, I can say that it would be very unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation would comply casually with a request from a non-US court where no ones life is in danger and there is not clear evidence of libel. Certainly, it is perfectly legal for American citizens not currently in the UK, such as myself (sitting in Paris now), to say that Ryan Giggs is reported widely in reliable sources to have been one of the footballers taking out a superinjunction. I won't type that when I'm in the UK, as I'm not currently looking for trouble.:)

My views are pretty clearly reported in today's Independent and should be no surprise to Wikipedians. I strongly defend the right of all people to speak the truth, and that's particularly true in the context of an NPOV discussion of information already reported in reliable sources - there should be no controversy about this at all, it isn't even borderline. (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_76#About_Super_Injunctions...)

While the name of CTB is no longer a secret, there are plenty more of these cases that could potentially set off legal action against WMF. However, provided that the edits involved satisfy the WP:FIVEPILLARS, they are likely to have First Amendment protection under State of Florida law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Deadline passes for Twitter

On Wednesday 25 May 2011, the deadline passed for Twitter to hand over details of users allegedly involved in the privacy breach.[3] The story says "Neither Twitter nor Schillings, the law firm representing the footballer, have commented on whether Wednesday’s deadline was met. But none of Twitter’s users has said they have been told by the Californian company that it has handed over their personal details, in line with its stated policy, as they have in similar cases previously." It remains to be seen whether this matter will be continued, or whether it will fall into the cracks and be forgotten about. This case is similar to G and G described above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Re. use of honorific titles in article

MOS seems to generally discourage this. Where it does appear on Wikipedia, the "mr.+justice" 'Mr Justice' use appears to be confined to articles on individual judges, where we (properly) describe their honorific titles. Nevard (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It would seem to be how he is refereed to in press reports [4] so see no reason for change. Mtking (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that this is an honorific. "Judge David Eady" is not his correct title in English law. See [5][6][7][8][9] for evidence that this is both the correct form of address, and his WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No. But David Eady is his name. I'm not sure I read the 'Common names' recommendation to mean the same thing as you do- while it might suggest we use 'Dave Eady' as his name if that was in common use, otherwise we should be using his name, 'David Eady'. Nevard (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of titles, but there is a need for both legal correctness and WP:COMMONNAME.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I support the use of "Mr Justice Eady". I don't think that it falls under WP:HONORIFIC (although the longer form The honourable Mr Justice Eady would), according to my reading of it. It does, however, appear to be his most common name both in the media and in legal documents, and according to Roy Greenslade at The Guardian it is the "proper" way to name him. We'd only have the fuller name a couple of times in the text anyway, the rest of the time it'd be shortened to Eady so I don't think it's the biggest issue. doomgaze (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

15 December 2011 hearing

Contrary to some media reports, the CTB injunction was not lifted at this hearing, but David Eady did suggest "There is no longer any point in maintaining the anonymity."[10] Video coverage from Sky News is here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pseudonode.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsmediaimages.com/celebrity-article-22757-imogen-thomas-is-welsh-who-else-do-you-know-who-is-welsh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)