Return to: Home | Blogs | Fourth Estate

Victory for press freedom . . . and Twitter

Why the Carter-Ruck case against the Guardian collapsed

Guest blog by Samira Shackle

The Guardian's front page today details the collapse of a case to prevent the reporting of a question tabled in parliament, in an important victory for press freedom. The judgment comes in the face of ever-further-reaching injunctions and super-injunctions.

In case you have (somehow) missed the story, the law firm Carter-Ruck -- described as the "sworn enemy" of the Press Complaints Commission by Sir Christopher Meyer, PCC chairman -- used an existing injunction to stop the Guardian from reporting a question asked in parliament by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly. The question related to the dumping of toxic waste in Côte d'Ivoire by the company Trafigura.

But, for the internet-literate among you, this will be old news. Signifying not just a victory for the historical right of the press to report parliamentary proceedings freely, but the growing influence of the internet on real politics, the collapse of the Carter-Ruck case today was a direct result of a spontaneous internet campaign.

After the Guardian reported that something bad was happening (without actually being able to report the nature of the question, who had asked it, where it could be found, which company had sought the gag, or even which order was constraining its coverage), thousands of Twitter users posted details of the question. Such was the volume of tweeting that "Trafigura" was the most popular word on Twitter this morning, with "Carter-Ruck" and "Guardian" not far behind.

The story then made its way on to several prominent blogs, with Richard Wilson and Iain Dale among those commenting on it.

Adam Tinworth was typical of the tone in the blogosphere:

What a morning it has been. The phrase "historic moment" is desperately overused, but it genuinely feels like one just occurred. A very old media process happened -- a company got a gagging order on a national newspaper, to try and quash a negative story about them. And a disparate, disaggregated group of individuals were able to work out the basics of what happened, and use Twitter to make the gagging order meaningless. That was mass, connected journalism at its finest.

The full question was published on the Spectator website yesterday, where Alex Massie points out that "by the time all this is over far more people will be aware of the controversy swirling around Trafigura's African adventures than would have been the case had they kept quiet and not attempted to silence the press". It also appears in the edition of Private Eye that went on sale today.

As the deluge of self-congratulatory posts on Twitter shows no sign of abating, MPs from all parties condemned Carter-Ruck's actions, which Farrelly says could be a "potential contempt of parliament". The Lib Dem MP Evan Harris called for control of secrecy injunctions.

Meanwhile, Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, issued a "Thanks to Twitter/all tweeters for fantastic support over past 16 hours", using his Twitter account, naturally. How apt.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

Tory Politico
14 October 2009 at 19:39

Interesting post, but I feel that your sequence of events is a bit off.

From what your are saying Twitter led the way in the fight against Carter-Ruck, this I feel is not true. While I agree that they were intrinsic to the way the message about what CR was up to, it was blogger - not twitterers that led the way. As far as I am aware me, Guido and Richard Wilson (in no particular order) were the first to publish the actual question, and by doing so risked be sued. In fact bloggers ran a much higher risk of been sued for breaking the injunction than twitterers.

MisterAedan
14 October 2009 at 21:00

Credit also due to Wikileaks for providing access to the Minton report and other materials and for preserving censored articles. Note also http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Guardian_still_under_secret_toxic_...

With regard to comment above, agreed - Twitter isn't where the investigation happens, but it does amplify the bloggers' voices so that more people hear, and allows rapid transmission before the lawyers can react. With no disrespect to either of the bloggers above, or the Spectator or anyone else who took the risk, the story might have been overlooked if it were their voices alone instead of mass outrage.

tim
15 October 2009 at 12:29

No one should be happy that twitter contributed in any way to the lifting of the injunction.

The useof an injunction to prevent a paper reporting on Parliament should never have been allowed, instead of twittering on about how new technology stopped it everyone's attention should be on how such an injunction could be granted in the first place, one that so dramatically impacted on press freedom and the reporting of Parliament

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Is Wikipedia dying?

25 November 2009 15:46

Ed Miliband and Jenni Russell

25 November 2009 11:09

PMQs should be held twice a week

24 November 2009 13:45

Iraq inquiry: it's too early to shout "whitewash"

24 November 2009 11:07

The trap the Iraq inquiry must avoid

23 November 2009 15:28

The man who would be kingmaker

23 November 2009 10:44

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Will the Iraq inquiry be a 'whitewash'?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker