h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Really?
You're going to try to sue Twitter?
A company based in California?
Not really wise, I'd say.

Good for the lawyers, though.
I wouldn't, mind you.
Great story for the papers either way.
Great publicity for Twitter, too.
Silly thing to do though.

Does anyone NOT already know who "a footballer" is?

Also, there was a classic moment on the Today programme this morning at about 08:50 when someone came THIS close to saying his name live on air.

Art imitating life?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cPFhYVXIAs

This post has been removed.

>> Does anyone NOT already know who "a footballer" is? <<

Yup. Me. Because I don't care.

RF

From what I can make out, British courts can claim jurisdiction if anyone in the UK tweets his name. Vanity Fair's publisher once said after his magazine was sued by Roman Polanski, "I find it amazing that a man who lives in France can sue a magazine that is published in America in a British courtroom." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_Fair_magazine#Polanski_libel_case

It's time for this meal-ticket for lawyers to be thrown out imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

In glorious action

Seriously given the MSM coverage this has got now pretty much anyone who is interested, and many who aren't, know the identity of the Footballer. What is he trying to achieve?

FB

I think they may have mentioned his name on Have I Got News For You last night if I recall correctly.

British courts can claim jurisdiction all they like. Enforcing it is another matter. As everyone is saying, only the lawyers can win in in this one.

I'd love to know how they came up with the initials CTB mind...

What if Twitter decide to block UK users in an effort to stave off legal action? Will that finally bring home how backward this country can be?

<>

Too thick to know his own initials?

I would highly recommend anyone who can to get on iPlayer and listen to this morning's "Today" programme at about ten to nine. An interviewee said one and a half syllables of "A Footballer"'s name before catching himself. It was hilarious.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Well, yes, he's suing Twitter to find out the details of the person who originally tweeted what was going on.

But given how much superinjunctions reportedly cost, he must, presumably, be imagining or have been advised that he stands to gain more than that if he can sue the individual responsible. Which means the individual responsible would have to be a multimillionaire too - these things are very far from cheap.

It hasn't been badly reported. The comedy character on Today this morning summed it up rather well, as it goes. It works like this:

The newspapers' position is that they should not be bound by the terms of the superinjunction on the basis that the injuncted information is already in the public domain. Their basis for that is its distribution on Twitter. There are arguments to be made as to whether Twitter is a "publisher" or whether it's just a conduit like the Post Office. There is also the vexed question of HOW that information got into the "public domain" in the first place. If it proves that the papers put it in the public domain, somebody is likely for the high jump.

The important point is that the papers have, at NO STAGE, ever claimed a "public interest" defence for wanting to publish this stuff. Their position is entirely based on the fact that it's out there already - and Mr. Footballer is presumably on a fishing expedition to secure details of how it got out.

My own feeling is that if you're going to have an extra-marital affair, you do your best to keep it secret. And if someone finds out, you take your lumps. If you don't like it, don't do it, nobody forces you to s4ag around. Or, do a better job of keeping it secret. And if you complain that it's harder to keep it secret because you're incredibly rich and famous, the dripping sound you hear is my heart bleeding.

Re: post 14 I think for legal reasons it's probably best to make it absolutely clear that Tony McCoy (the current BBC Sports Personality of the Year) is NOT a footballer and has NOT had a superinjunction (to my knowledge at least) and is NOT suing Twitter.

I'd also like to note that David Beckham, Michael Owen, Paul Gascoigne and Bobby Moore are definitely NOT suing Twitter.

Henry Cooper?

Not a footballer.

I really find it amazing that someone can actually force a person they have had consenting sex with to not say the name of that person...gagging the media yes but not the person they were bonking...it does make the law a bit of an ass...having the threat of jail for saying the name of someone who has shagged you while married etc...beggars belief.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Imogen what-ever-her-name-is walked around London with a sandwich board with the name of the footballer on it.

...would she be arrested and prosecuted...that really would not go down well with the public, the publics view of the law and the publics view of the footballer...of course the only way 'we' would get to know who it is if it got spread on the internet and is any UK based media-site etc going to take the chance of being prosecuted for mentioning the name...

Yes, we all know who it is but assume it's a day after the superinjunction came out.

I mean, what hsa this footballer got to gain? It's hardly going to rian on his parade or anything like that?