I’d better be careful writing this one hadn’t I?
The furore surrounding the alleged, apparent and potentially utterly innacurate revelations of ‘truths’ behind so-called super-injunctions by the Twitter feed @InjunctionSuper last night (since removed by Twitter, but I saw it yesterday before its demise) poses the crucial question of how information released through social media can be controlled if it is of a sensitive legal nature.
The BBC went to town on the matter this morning. The revelations were the second lead on the Today programme, which is mildly ridiculous from an editorial standpoint but at least gave journalists something scope for speculation around what response we might see from the courts.
Having apparently breached a series of super-injunctions, the tweets in question were held up as an example of why changes to the law may be necessary given that while conventional media have to abide by rulings, the ability of a person or persons registering a Twitter account and spilling the beans highlighted major legislative flaws.
This misses the important point though – the law it stands is perfectly (well, largely) adequate for dealing with illegal information disclosures – or, come to mention it, defamation and libel - providing the author of the content is known. That does not mean I agree with super-injunctions. It’s just that to suggest legal chages are needed is sniffing in the wrong spot.
Every conventional media publisher in this country identifies itself in its product. You know who wrote it, so you know who to sue or who to prosecute. The problem with social media is that, despite the declarations of identity and purpose during sign-up, it is so easy to masquerade as someone else or cover your tracks when registering an account with naughty intent that my cats could practically do it.
The powers that be should be working out how to ensure that every person using social media can ultimately be tracked, identified and whalloped if necessary. There is no such thing as power of the press, so there should be no such thing as power of the social press.
Celebrity tittle-tattle and personal reputation soiling is one thing. But if social media goes on like the Wild West then we risk something of genuine public interest or national security being dribbled out or tossed around like playground banter.
Meanwhile, has anyone got a social media analysis tool to tell me how much Imogen Thomas’ net worth has increased in the past 24 hours?
