“Urgh. But it does something I hate, and that is: vindicate the existence of Twitter.”
A couple of friends and I were sitting in a bar after work, having a discussion about an ethical issue that one of the group could take to a debate at his MBA class the following week. The topic of Carter Ruck’s injunction against the Guardian was riding high in the list of favourites, and Sam was moaning about the role of Twitter.
The case involved an injunction being taken out on behalf of Trafigura, the oil trading company, who have paid out compensation (without admitting culpability) to people made ill by the dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast. Not only was the paper not allowed to publish the findings of a report into the case (which can be found here, for those interested), they were prevented from reporting a Parliamentary question about the measures ministers were taking to protect whistleblowers and press freedom following the injunction. This, despite the 1689 Bill of Rights, which states that ”proceedings of parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament”.
The editor of the Guardian, Messages were directed at companies whose ads appeared on the same page as the article, asking whether they wanted to be identified with such a feature; numbers for head offices, press offices and communications department began to spring up on sites, with messages urging people to call. Stephen Fry’s tweet publicising the Press Complaints Commission led to the site crashing under volume of traffic. At the time of writing, the display ads on the page had all disappeared, and there were 559 comments on the article, the overwhelming majority of which seemed horrified by its tone. (People have even begun to pick holes in her grammar: apparently dangling modifiers are just as unforgivable as the sentiment itself.)
In the space of a week, a social medium has overturned one example of the new breed of ‘super-injunctions’ and provoked a huge backlash against a columnist – to the point that Moir has just released a statement defending her article.
Both cases show the influence of Twitter. Whilst it is mostly a channel for sharing banality about the minutiae of day-to-day life, it does show that it’s also an exceptionally powerful tool that gives one voice to overwhelming public opinion. Twitter has the power to turn big companies from their courses of action; power to grind into the mud the reputations of those whose behaviour it deems unacceptable. Whether you like, approve of or use Twitter or not, at the moment, it cannot, cannot be ignored. Sorry, Sam.
