A law unto themselves?

14-10-2009

by Ralph Averbuch

Gagging laws can't stifle an internet generation that wants the freedom to know the facts.

There are quite a few examples now where the established order has had its feathers ruffled by the internet. There's no more obvious an example than when wealthy individuals or big business interests with something to hide seek to use the law to stifle freedom of speech. But it seems, unless you're China or Iran, it's just getting harder and harder for these bits of legal jiggery-pokery to have the grip they enjoyed pre-internet. This was brought home when the UK's Guardian newspaper was given a 'gagging order' by a judge preventing it from reporting on a UK MP's question in Parliament. The paper was told it couldn't report which MP asked the offending question, what the question was about, what Minister was being asked this question and what answer was given. Sounds pretty tough. Yet less than an hour after the Guardian reported the situation, carefully not referencing any person or company to avoid a breach of the gagging order, hordes of Twitter and Facebook users were on the case, attempting to shed light where the newspaper could not. It took all of 42 minutes before the first messages began flooding out, reporting that it was all to do with a scandal over pollution spilt on the Ivory coast. In this instance it's quite likely that this bizarre gagging order would have been overturned by due legal process, not least because it challenged press freedom to report on Parliamentary affairs in the UK - a practice that dates back to the 1700s. But the affair highlights, once again, how determined internet-savvy individuals can easily bypass the kind of legal restrictions placed on media reporting, in order to shed light on the less-than-open activities of big business. And the company concerned? It's called Trafigura. It's a "Global trading businesses, including the supply and offtake of crude oil, petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), metals, ores and concentrates". No doubt desks in this company's legal and PR departments are going to be rapidly vacated. The Guardian's editor writes a good column on the fiasco which reveals more on this particular faux pas.

Comments

Email a friend

RSS feed

Socialite

Track this story's companies and topics

» Define your own keyword alert

Recent posts
Music sales get more social with Spotify
People make 140 letters priceless
Will Twitter ride the mobile wave?
Hope in the fight against censorship
Smartphones: the tipping point's coming
A malignant threat from our mobiles
Social takes the fight to search
Make room for the message
Apple's new court based tactics
Welcome back King Content