Social media tests law again over identities of those involved in Downing Street affair
Social media is once again shirking legal responsibility as the mainstream media remains quietly on the sidelines, with the identities of a couple involved in a mysterious affair linked directly to the top of 10 Downing Street going unreported by traditional outlets. The affair itself has been described as a "complete mess" with legalities preventing the mainstream media from reporting in full. In that case, somebody really should let Twitter know.
Explosive: The Mail on Sunday splash which rocked Twitter
The social media vs the law debate has gained prominence once more as tweeters and bloggers throw caution to the wind in the aftermath of the Mail On Sunday story which revealed details of a damaging affair and set out on an identification investigation.
Rumours are flying with several names being discussed. Some tweeters and bloggers have been bold, others clouding the speculation in question and implication.
The Twitter storm could have lawyers rubbing their hands at the number of potential law breaches. But how realistic is it to clamp down on social media citizen journalism in the age of rapid and extensive communication?
Editor of the Guido Fawkes blog, Paul Staines, said: "I think people need to understand that social media is not above the law. Whether the law can cope with social media is another matter. In sufficient numbers any form of mass civil disobedience will overwhelm the authorities."
Civil disobedience, citizen journalism and the tools to communicate to a mass audience are putting authorities in quite a predicament.
Ignoring legal implications with a claimed moral justification led Neil Harkins and Dean Liddle to court after revealing information leading to the identification of Jon Venables, one of the killers of toddler James Bulger in Merseyside in 1993.
However, that high profile case hasn't deterred social media users from venturing towards legal lines again, with some showing no hesitation when crossing them.
The Mail cited legal reasons hindering the paper from publishing the identities of the parties involved. Professor Roy Greenslade, the Guardian's media blogger, could shed no further light on what those were.
For traditional media titles, that uncertainty can only widen the potential legal implications of stepping over the mark. For social media, it doesn't appear to come into much consideration.
Ask Ryan Giggs who knows all too well having attempted to use a super injunction to gag the media, leading to The Sunday Herald’s splash that will go down in history, and his attempt to silence the thousands who had outwardly named him on Twitter.
The Sally Bercow libel ruling may have increased trepidation as the Mail story broke, but as the Twitter coverage has mounted so has the bravado in the speculation. So is social media making a mockery of the law?
Law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, Brian Pillans, said high profile examples made by the law can be a deterrent, but it doesn't solve the problem.
"As was revealed in the McAlpine/Berco case it's easy to pursue an identifiable Twitter user who posts unlawful content within jurisdiction, and just because thousands of Twitter users wind up revealing the identity of the protagonists that provides no protection for the individual user that is pursued as an example," he explained.
"The complications arise where the Twitter user is either anonymous - in which case the prosecutor would need to either persuade or force Twitter to reveal the identity of the user(s), and that raises a variety of issues itself - or outside of jurisdiction.
'What the McAlpine/Bercow case also confirms is that anyone speculating online or on Twitter exposes themselves to a libel/defamation case if they are wrong and are likely to be taken seriously."
As tweeters and bloggers agree between themselves the alleged identities of the parties involved in the alleged affair, it remains to be seen whether the lawyers are getting ready for a battle or whether, once again, Twitter has won the battle of the media.