Well, it turns out the law applies to Twitter, too. A Californian court has ordered Twitter to hand over the details of five Twitter accounts as part of an English council’s investigation into a local whistleblowing blogger called “Mr Monkey”.
That South Tyneside Council went directly to the Californian court was the Times‘s top line. Seeing as Twitter is a US company, this is hardly surprising, particularly when the website’s terms of service are taken into account. Under the heading “Controlling Law and Jurisdiction”, it says:
All claims, legal proceedings or litigation arising in connection with the Services will be brought solely in San Francisco County, California, and you consent to the jurisdiction of and venue in such courts and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum. [Emphasis added]
In other words, if a person or organisation wants to subpoena information about a Twitter user, they have to do so in California – and the user has to fight against it in California. While footballers and councils can afford to launch such proceedings – South Tyneside has so far spent “less than £75,000” in its attempts to unmask Mr Monkey – many Twitter users will not be able to afford to defend them.
Although the story broke yesterday in the Sunday Telegraph, it has been rumbling on for months. Mr Monkey published the following email exchange, between South Tyneside and the solicitor investigating Mr Monkey on the council’s behalf (click to enlarge for both).
South Tyneside’s success could prove extremely significant. Ryan Giggs’s lawyers were unsuccessful in their recent attempt to force Twitter to hand over details of accounts that speculated whether the Manchester United footballer had taken out an injunction.
Lawyers for Giggs went through the high court in the UK; if they were to try through California’s lawcourts, however, they would stand a much better chance, as it is these courts that actually have jurisdiction over Twitter.
Throughout the 2000s, London gained the nickname of a “town called Sue” in legal circles, after it became an extremely popular destination for libel tourism. The advent of Twitter, however, has twisted this upside down. The case of Mr Monkey could trigger a flood of libel traffic in the opposite direction, across the Atlantic.
In any case, Twitter’s age of innocence is over. Anonymity is not guaranteed and users are neither immune to libel nor impervious to injunctions. Unless you can afford a good lawyer and a few return trips to San Francisco, be wary. Mind your tweets.