I've been contacted by the Twitter Legal Team

[andrewducker]

Dear Twitter User,

We are writing to inform you that Twitter has received legal correspondence regarding specific content posted on your Twitter account, @andrewducker.

The complainant requests that the following Tweet, allegedly in violation of local law in the UK, be removed immediately from your account:

https://twitter.com/andrewducker/status/718750330758955008

Please confirm whether you will voluntarily comply with the request.

NOTE: The Twitter Rules state that users agree to comply with all local laws regarding their online conduct and acceptable content. Please also be aware that abusive behaviour may lead to your account being suspended.

If you believe we have contacted you in error, please let us know by replying to this email. This notice is not legal advice. You may wish to consult legal counsel about this matter, as a matter of urgency.

Sincerely,
Twitter

Looking at that tweet, and the article it links to, I can't see how it can be in violation of the injunction which was just upheld. It doesn't name any names, and in fact it's very careful to avoid doing so.

In addition, of course, I live in Scotland, where the injunction doesn't hold (and, indeed, I believe the names were published by a major newspaper).

If anyone would like to tell me differently, then I'd be fascinated to hear more...

Comments

[miss_s_b]

No, I think you're completely correct. I would reply to the email saying as much.

[rmc28]

Perhaps they are going after people who link to the Popbitch article, in hopes of intimidating them. Perhaps you should let Popbitch know ...

[andrewducker]

Done!

[andrewducker]

Oooh, good idea.

[casimirian]

Please keep us updated on how this goes. It looks like you're in the right. And if you aren't -- I would hope they'd explain their reasoning. Good luck!

[andrewducker]

Thanks - I will, if I hear anything back!

[marahmarie]

How can posting a link (naming no names, violating no known provisions of any injunction) be breaking UK law? Also, what is the difference between "local" law in the UK and uh, nationwide law?

I ask because it's sort of like this in the US; Local law, city law, county law, state law, federal (nationwide) law. But as straightforward as you might think that hierarchy is, it isn't. You'd think a federal law wins out over all but at times it seems a local law can supersede a federal one. I'm not sure why we have such inconsistency, and always mean to look it up, but never quite get around to doing it.

I'm completely befuddled at your situation.

I'm also a little put off by the obvious chilling effect in action. Kinda scary. The mere idea of being asked to remove a link because posting it violates some, much less any law is like, whoa.

[andrewducker]

Scotland has always had its own legal system, because it was only brought into the UK in 1707. Nowadays there are UK-wide laws and there are ones passed by the Scottish parliament. But even the UK-wide ones usually have a part at the end saying how they affect Scottish law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_and_excepted_matters