Guy Sues Twitter For Taking Away His Twitter Handle

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Leonard Barshack, who founded BigFoot, which was a (quite popular) internet forwarding mailing service in the dotcom era, has apparently sued Twitter for taking away his username, @SunValley and giving it to the Sun Valley resort. Barshack, who lives in Sun Valley, Idaho, claims that taking away his username was a violation of Twitter's policies, because he didn't really violate Sun Valley's trademark. As Eric Goldman notes, this lawsuit has little likelihood of succeeding. Twitter claimed that the combination of using the name @SunValley with a sun logo similar to Sun Valley's, was a non-parody impersonation of the trademark holder.

Reading through the actual filing, Barshack, who is represented by his wife, Erin Smith, who also is a plaintiff, focuses on the fact that Sun Valley doesn't indicate on its website that its logo is covered by trademark. That's about as close to meaningless as you can imagine. Not only do you not have to show that it's a registered trademark, you don't even need to have a registered trademark (though, it helps if you're seeking damages) because common law trademarks are perfectly acceptable in most cases.

But, more to the point, Twitter has no legal obligation to let you keep your account. If it wants to take away the account and shut it down, it can. If it wants to change the name of your account, it can. I just don't see what the purpose of the lawsuit is, other than that Barshack is upset. I can understand that, and I might even agree that Twitter could and should handle disputes like this differently, but that doesn't give him any basis at all for a lawsuit. Not liking something that a company does isn't a reason to sue.

Filed Under: leonard barshack, sun valley, trademark, twitter, twitter handle
Companies: sun valley

Canadian Airline Files $4 Million Libel Suit Against 22 Striking Fuel Workers Over Twitter Account With ~200 Followers

from the seems-a-bit-extreme dept

Labor disputes can certainly get nasty at times, but Porter Airlines out of Canada has filed a $4 million libel lawsuit against some striking fuel workers based on tweets they sent out, which the airline claims involved "false and misleading information about safety protocols and training practices" by the airline. The strikers, who only just unionized last year, include just 22 workers who handle helping to fuel up the planes. Their twitter account, @PorterStrike, only had about 200 followers at the time (though it's now up to a whopping 400). The union quickly hit back, saying that the tweets were protected free speech, and no different than typical striking talk by union members:

“Before Twitter and social media, these things would have been said in a union hall and on a leaflet,” said COPE Ontario legal representative Glenn Wheeler. “The Charter of Rights provides for free expression, freedom of association. So we think we are in our constitutional rights to offer our version of the way we see things. That’s fair comment.”

That's an interesting choice of words, because he doesn't actually say that the statements were true, which would be the best defense to libel. However, even if the statements were questionable, one has to wonder how much actual "damage" they might do. One would like to expect that statements made by striking workers against their employer would already be viewed through a specific prism, and given how few Twitter followers there were, you'd have to imagine that Porter would have a difficult time showing any actual harm from the tweets in question. Separately, I wonder how much more of a reputational hit the company will take for suing less than two dozen striking workers for $4 million over some tweets...

Filed Under: canada, defamation, striking, twitter, unions
Companies: porter airlines

Thousands Of People Tweet To Rep. Mike Rogers That They're Not 14, Not In Their Basement, And They Still Oppose CISPA

from the speak-up dept

We just noted how Rep. Mike Rogers, the sponsor for the CISPA cybersecurity bill that wipes out a variety of privacy protections for companies handing private info to the government had told the House Rules Committee that the only real opposition was 14-year-olds in their basement. It seems that many opponents to CISPA think Rogers is ignorant. A campaign quickly went viral on Twitter in which people are tweeting at Rep. Rogers' account about how they're not 14, not in their basement, but still very much opposed to CISPA. In just an hour or so, there have been well over 1,500 tweets, and the number keeps growing rapidly. By the time this post is edited and live, it will almost certainly be well over 2,000 and growing.
Those are just two quick screenshots showing some of the top complaints. That's not me pulling out a few, those were just the most recent ones and new ones keep piling up.

Perhaps Congressman Mike Rogers might want to rethink his assessment of the opposition and recognize that maybe there are legitimate privacy concerns that he has chosen to not properly address in his bill.

Filed Under: 14 years old, basement, cispa, cybersecurity, mike rogers, privacy, twitter

Lord McAlpine, Wronged By BBC, Demands 10,000 People On Twitter Pay Up

from the mcalpine-effect dept

Folks in the UK have spent much of this month following the story of Lord McAlpine (Robert Alistair McAlpine) the former politician who worked for Margaret Thatcher. Earlier this month, the BBC reported on its Newsnight program that an unnamed former "senior" politician in the UK government was implicated in a child abuse scandal. People on Twitter quickly assumed from the description that it was McAlpine, and the story spread quickly. A few days later, the Guardian broke the story that it was a case of mistaken identity. That scandal has thrown the BBC into chaos over its reporting.

But, more interesting to us, is the fact that Lord McAlpine (not a Twitter user) has announced his intention to go after 10,000 Twitter users for either claiming he was the person in question or for retweeting someone else saying that. Some have already apologized for their tweets, but even among those who have, they claim that McAlpine's lawyers are going to ridiculous lengths, with one person, Sally Bercow, who has apologized, also claiming that McAlpine's lawyers are "ambulance chasers" and "big bullies."

But the decision to force 10,000 people to pay up seems crazy:

Lawyers acting for Lord McAlpine have also drawn up a "very long list" of targets they intend to pursue for defamation, including the authors of 1,000 original tweets and a further 9,000 individuals who retweeted those messages.

Apparently if you're "small time" you won't have to pay as much:

Lord McAlpine's solicitor, Andrew Reed, said last night that those with under 500 followers will be asked to make a donation to charity as part of a settlement, with an "administration fee" for sorting it out. He added that higher profile figures, such as Ms Bercow, are "a separate matter".

Here's the insane part: McAlpine claims that he's doing this to "restore my reputation." Demanding 10,000 people on Twitter pay up isn't going to "restore" your reputation. It's going to tarnish it. Yes, it's pretty clear that McAlpine was wronged by the initial reports that suggested he was involved in the scandal. And the BBC is paying up handsomely for their mistake (apparently a six figure settlement has already been negotiated). But the news that the BBC's report was false spread like wildfire. Everyone knows the report was false. Going after people on Twitter for talking about it doesn't do anything more to restore his reputation, it just makes him look like a giant bully -- and, in the process, calls much more attention to him and his tactics here.

Filed Under: defamation, lord mcalpine, streisand effect, twitter, uk
Companies: bbc

Biggest Critic Of NBC's Awful Olympic Coverage Has Twitter Account Suspended For Tweeting NBC Exec's Email

from the questionable... dept

One of the loudest critics of NBC Universal's awful Olympics coverage was Guy Adams, who certainly wasn't pulling any punches with his Olympics-related tweets. Either way he was a bit surprised to find his account suspended. When he sought to find out why, he discovered it was because he had tweeted the email address of Gary Zenkel, NBC's exec in charge of the Olympics coverage. Twitter claims that this was the revealing of "private information," in violation of Twitter's terms of service.

Adams, quite rightly, found this to be odd, noting that Zenkel's corporate email address is not private at all. As Deadspin shows in the link above, Adams let Twitter's PR folks know it:

I'm of course happy to abide by Twitter's rules, now and forever. But I don't see how I broke them in this case: I didn't publish a private email address. Just a corporate one, which is widely available to anyone with access to Google, and is identical to one that all of the tens of thousands of NBC Universal employees share.

It's no more "private" than the address I'm emailing you from right now.

Either way, quite worrying that NBC, whose parent company are an Olympic sponsor, are apparently trying (and, in this case, succeeding) in shutting down the Twitter accounts of journliasts who are critical of their Olympic coverage.

Adams also wonders if the suspension happened because of complaints from NBC -- a Twitter partner in this Olympics coverage, remember -- who is upset about Adams' constant berating on Twitter as well as in the publication he writes for, The Independent. In fact, NBC has put out a statement confirming that it filed a complaint about Adams' Twitter account, though Twitter did not need to then suspend his account.

And, of course, as tends to happen in these sorts of situations, Gary Zenkel's email address is now much more widely available because tons of press reports are including it.

Filed Under: account suspended, criticism, email, gary zenkel, guy adams, private info, streisand effect, twitter
Companies: nbc universal, twitter

Harsh Tweet Gets Fan Kicked Out Of Nerd Rapper's Show

from the disconnecting-from-fans dept

We talk an awful lot about the need for artists to connect with their fans in order to succeed. One of the easiest tools to use in this effort is Twitter. In fact, Twitter is so easy to use, it has almost become the default method for many artists to communicate and connect. Unfortunately, it has an equal ability to cause strife between an artist and a fan. This is the lesson that one nerd rapper, MC Chris, learned recently.

It all started when one fan, Taylor, sent a tweet complaining about the opening act of an MC Chris concert. This tweet was then read by MC Chris while he was preparing to go on stage. It all went down hill from there.

"I was in my green room checking on my Twitter," he said. "During the show, someone tweeted something negative about Richie. And I don't have a problem with stuff like this. I get made fun of and called all sorts of name every day. But if someone messes with my friend I have this weird reaction that happens, and I do things that probably are kind of not normal, abnormal. I just become extremely protective.

"I marched onstage, and in between songs with Richie, I grabbed the microphone and I said 'Who is this person's name,' he came up, and I said, 'You're going to have to go off with somebody with the venue and tell them to escort you off for talking shit on Twitter.'"

Taylor relented and left the show. Then it got even worse, but mostly for MC Chris. Not only did Kotaku get ahold of the story, but Taylor also posted his story to Reddit. It was this widespread dissemination in the online community that eventually led to MC Chris apologizing on video and breaking down in tears while doing so.

There are a number of lessons to learn from this. The internet provides a way for us to quickly express our opinions. Not all of those opinions are going to be well received, particularly by those we criticize. However, the best response to something like that is not to attack the source of the criticism or the tool those people use. The lesson that MC Chris has learned the hard way is that by responding to online criticism with an attack on the person behind it, he has not lost just one fan but the respect of a whole lot of others. While his apology seems sincere, such things tend to not heal wounded fans very easily.

That said, it is great that MC Chris was taking an interest in what his fans were saying about him and his opening acts. Doing so can be a great way to gauge the how well recieved you are and how you can improve. However, lashing out when negative opinions are shared will do nothing but harm your reputation and your ability to monetize your work. We know that if people like you and your work, they'll pay.

Filed Under: back firing, communications, connecting with fans, mc chris, twitter

Speak Out Against CISPA: Join The Twitter Campaign And Contact Your Representative

from the get-involved dept

On Friday, the House Intelligence Committee released a new draft of CISPA, the dangerous cybersecurity bill that threatens to give the government access to huge amounts of personal data. Despite small improvements in some areas, the bill still has huge problems and lacks adequate privacy safeguards—and the House is going to vote on it next week. As part of a final push to let Congress know what people think of this bad legislation, several organizations have launched public action campaigns that you can get involved in.

Firstly, there is the Congress Wants Too Much Information campaign on Twitter. Multiple groups are asking you to tweet your thoughts on CISPA with the hashtags #CongressTMI and #CISPA. U.S. citizens can look up and tag their representatives' Twitter accounts—and you can also include @HouseIntelComm, the authors of the bill. The groups behind the campaign suggest pointing out examples of data that could, but shouldn't, be shared under CISPA, such as:

@Myrepresentative Does the FBI need to know what books I checked out from my local library? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA

@Myrepresentative Does the military need to know I send my Mom lolcat pictures? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA

@Myrepresentative Does the NSA need to know I watch Netflix from my work computer? #CongressTMI Stop #CISPA

Now is also the time to directly contact members of Congress by phone or by email. There are tools to make this easier from the ACLU, the EFF and Free Press.

Pressure is also increasing on the companies that back CISPA, especially those in the technology sphere. In addition to contacting Congress, you can send a message to CISPA's private supporters by signing AccessNow's petition to all of them, and Demand Progress' petition directed specifically at Facebook.

CISPA still enjoys a lot of support in Congress, but the growing public backlash means the bill's future is uncertain. With continued effort, Congress can be convinced to back off and work on crafting smarter, more narrowly tailored cybersecurity legislation that protects people's privacy.

Of equal importance is the bigger message this sends to lawmakers. There are many people who still think what happened with SOPA was a fluke, driven by the technology lobby and a few key tech companies. But the growing opposition to CISPA—a bill supported by many of the same tech giants that opposed SOPA—proves that it was something much more significant, and that the online community will not be ignored when it comes to decisions that govern the internet.

Filed Under: cispa, congress, petition, tmi, twitter
Companies: aclu, demand progress, eff, free press

Twitter Suspends Four Accounts Critical of Sarkozy: Is This What He Meant By 'Civilizing' The Net?

from the what's-going-on-here? dept

Nicolas Sarkozy, who hopes to be re-elected as French President this year, seems to have little love for the Internet. At best, he regards it as a "Wild West" that needs taming. Despite that, Sarkozy joined Twitter last week -- you can follow him @NicolasSarkozy. Posts are mainly written by his re-election team, although there seem to be a handful of personal tweets (marked "NS"). But at least he's finally engaging with the new medium on its own terms.

Or maybe not:

The morning after French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced he will run for a second term, several parodic Twitter accounts have mysteriously been suspended. @_nicolassarkozy , an account created in September 2010 and clearly labeled as a satirical Sarkozy impersonation, was suspended on Feburary 16th.

The account was run by the French website kaboul.fr:

According to Kaboul.fr, which, after complaining, received an answer from Twitter, @_nicolassarkozy was "suspended after being reported." Twitter also told Kabul.fr that to be granted such priviledge, the suspension had to be made by Sarkozy, or someone acting on his authority.

Twitter's official response has been leaked:

We have received a valid report that your account, @_NicolasSarkozy, is engaged in non-parody impersonation. Although Twitter firmly believes in the freedom of expression, impersonation that misleads, confuses, or deceives others is against the Twitter Rules (http://twitter.com/rules). Your account has been temporarily suspended due to violation of our impersonation policy.

The key issue here seems to be possible confusion, since Twitter's guidelines on Parody, Commentary, and Fan Accounts state:

In order to avoid impersonation, an account's profile information should make it clear that the creator of the account is not actually the same person or entity as the subject of the parody/commentary. Here are some suggestions for marking your account:

Username: The username should not be the exact name of the subject of the parody, commentary, or fandom; to make it clearer, you should distinguish the account with a qualifier such as "not," "fake," or "fan."

Name: The profile name should not list the exact name of the subject without some other distinguishing word, such as "not," "fake," or "fan."

Maybe the account @_NicolasSarkozy has fallen foul of those rules, although it's hard to believe anyone would mistake a parody of Sarkozy for the real thing - it was not an "impersonation". But what about the other accounts that were suspended?

three other accounts, all clearly opposing Sarkozy's political views, were suspended at the same time: @mafranceforte, @fortefrance and @SarkozyCaSuffit. Those accounts where not related to Kaboul.fr, nor impersonating local politician, but straight-ahead, and recently-created, politically-oriented Twitter accounts.

"La France Forte" -- "Strong France" -- is the slogan for Sarkozy's campaign, prominently displayed on his Twitter page, so the use of the phrase for Twitter accounts might be seen as confusing. But again, the content would surely tip people off that it was a parody. The last of the four accounts that were suspended recently is @SarkozyCaSuffit -- roughly translated as "Sarkozy, That's Enough". It's clearly what Twitter calls a "Commentary" account, making a very obvious comment about a political figure - no question of "impersonation". Unless there are any other grounds for doing so (and so far there don't seem to be any), removing it looks like pure political censorship in favor of Sarkozy.

We don't know at this stage exactly who asked for these four accounts to be removed, only that according to Twitter's rules it must have been done "by Sarkozy, or someone acting on his authority". We asked Twitter about this and it refused to provide specifics on why the accounts were closed or the timing, other than to say that just because the accounts were suspended in the same general time frame, it wasn't necessarily for the same reason.

Be that as it may, the near-simultaneous closure of four accounts all critical of a powerful national politician inevitably reminds us that for many countries, "civilizing" the Internet often comes down to censoring it. It's worrying to see France apparently starting to go down that route -- and for Twitter to be helping it.

Update @_NicolasSarkozy has been unblocked, but the other three are still suspended.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: france, free speech, nicolas sarkozy, satire, terms of service, twitter
Companies: twitter

Senator Joe Lieberman Follows Up His 'Report Blog As Terrorist' Letter By Asking Twitter To Block Pro-Taliban Feeds

from the seems-it-would-be-simpler-to-just-revoke-the-Senator's-internet-access dept

Joe Lieberman is at it again. And by "it," I mean throwing around the word "terrorist" as an excuse to further sanitize the web for our "protection." Having already talked Google into allowing users to flag Youtube videos as "terrorist," Lieberman went a step further, asking for the "Report as Terrorist" option to be applied to Blogger as well.

Having taken a swing at long-form blogging, Lieberman is now taking the fight to the other end of the "wordiness" spectrum: Twitter.

Senators want to stop feeds which boast of insurgent attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan and the casualties they inflict. Aides for Joe Lieberman, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the move was part of a wider attempt to eliminate violent Islamist extremist propaganda from the internet and social media. The Taliban movement has embraced the social network as part of its propaganda effort and regularly tweets about attacks or posts links to its statements.

Like everyone else in this digital age, the Taliban is using various social media to communicate with its fans. But why should our Senators be concerned about what the Taliban had for lunch? And more importantly, why do they feel so deeply that forcing Twitter to block these feeds will prevent future "violent Islamist extremist" action? If NATO forces are attacked and no one tweets about it, does it change the outcome?

The feeds named in the Telegraph article (@ABalkhi and @alemarahweb) are about as "threatening" as a Westboro Bapist Church Twitter account, with a few facts tucked away between tweet after tweet filled with jingoistic statements and "preaching to the converted." The very idea that blocking feeds like this will deter or diminish future Taliban activity is laughable at best, and disingenuous grandstanding at worst. In fact, it makes Lieberman and his fellow Senators nothing more than "preaching to the converted" grandstanders, scoring easy points with voters who still somehow believe the only thing Twitter has to offer is lunch descriptions and terrorist propaganda.

As for Twitter, it won't even confirm whether or not Lieberman has asked it to block the feeds.

Rachel Bremer, a spokesman for Twitter, said: "This isn't something we'd comment on."

Not only that, but Twitter won't have to block these feeds no matter how nicely Lieberman asks because the Taliban is not registered as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Any censorship applied by Twitter would pretty much just be a personal favor to Joe, rather than a government-sanctioned shutdown.

Lieberman obviously believes that his success with Youtube filtering should be applied to every area of the internet. He's already gone after the long (Blogger) and the short (Twitter) which means his next request for "Report as Terrorist" buttons will be sent to Tumblr, possibly resulting in the removal of f*ckyeahterrorism.tumblr.com and ryangoslingtaliban.tumblr.com.

One has to wonder why Lieberman is so persistent in his attempts to turn every form of social media into a scattershot weapon aimed at the angry words and hashtags of "Islamist extremists." Possibly a core chunk of his key demographic responds well to blaming the internet for terrorism, but that seems unlikely. Maybe he just likes to see his name in print and, much like four-year-olds and Lindsay Lohan, firmly believes any "attention" is "good attention."

[Press here to "Report Senator as Idiot."]

Filed Under: blogs, joe lieberman, terrorism, twitter
Companies: twitter

Judge Says Bombarding Someone On Twitter With Offensive & Threatening Messages Is Free Speech

from the tough-cases dept

Earlier this year we wrote about a tough case, involving a guy who apparently spent nearly all of his waking hours bombarding a Buddhist leader he had a falling out with, with nasty, offensive and threatening messages on Twitter. He was charged with criminal stalking. This raised an awful lot of questions about the First Amendment, and a judge has now ruled that the tweets were, in fact, protected free speech. I tend to think the ruling here is correct, though I can see how this troubles people. As the judge noted, however:

Even though the Internet is the newest medium for anonymous, uncomfortable expression touching on political or religious matters, online speech is equally protected under the First Amendment as there is "no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied" to online speech.... Indeed "whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, basic principles of freedom of speech and press, like the First Amendment's command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears."

Funny. I would think that this same reasoning would apply against domain seizures and SOPA, but it never seems to come up. That said, if the guy represents a real threat, I would think there are other laws that should cover that, outside of this broad "anti-stalking" law that was used. The fact that he caused "emotional distress" to the person his tweets were directed at is unfortunate and sad... but not illegal.

Filed Under: free speech, offensive, stalking, twitter
Companies: twitter