This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jun/26/jeremy-forrest-twitter-users

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Jeremy Forrest case: Twitter users could have broken the law Jeremy Forrest case: Twitter users could have broken the law
(3 months later)
Police are looking at tweets sent following the conviction of Jeremy Forrest to see whether those who identified his victim have broken the law.Police are looking at tweets sent following the conviction of Jeremy Forrest to see whether those who identified his victim have broken the law.
On Tuesday a Sussex police spokesman said: "We are aware that the girl has been named on a number of social media sites. We will be talking to colleagues from the Crown Prosecution Service about to establish whether there are any social media offences and if so what action should be taken."On Tuesday a Sussex police spokesman said: "We are aware that the girl has been named on a number of social media sites. We will be talking to colleagues from the Crown Prosecution Service about to establish whether there are any social media offences and if so what action should be taken."
The conviction of Forrest has highlighted the conflict between laws designed to protect victims and those on social media prepared to break the law.The conviction of Forrest has highlighted the conflict between laws designed to protect victims and those on social media prepared to break the law.
When a sexual offence becomes apparent, anonymity applies to the victim, for their lifetime. In the days of print and broadcast media, this was reasonably easy to maintain. The only way a member of the public could ascertain a victim's identity would be by trawling newspaper archives.When a sexual offence becomes apparent, anonymity applies to the victim, for their lifetime. In the days of print and broadcast media, this was reasonably easy to maintain. The only way a member of the public could ascertain a victim's identity would be by trawling newspaper archives.
By this weekend, about 200 people had referred to Forrest's victim by name on social media, despite the fact that she has two forms of legal anonymity – that for victims of sexual offences, and also by way of a court-imposed order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.By this weekend, about 200 people had referred to Forrest's victim by name on social media, despite the fact that she has two forms of legal anonymity – that for victims of sexual offences, and also by way of a court-imposed order under section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
She could, if she wished, waive her anonymity under sexual offences legislation, although there seems no indication that she is doing so. The CYPA order remains in place until she is 18 or a judge removes it.She could, if she wished, waive her anonymity under sexual offences legislation, although there seems no indication that she is doing so. The CYPA order remains in place until she is 18 or a judge removes it.
That did not stop the tweets though. Some were clearly confused at what they saw as an illogical legal bar to naming her, when her identity had been known so widely at the time of her abduction.That did not stop the tweets though. Some were clearly confused at what they saw as an illogical legal bar to naming her, when her identity had been known so widely at the time of her abduction.
Others clearly knew the legal position, but were intent on defying it because it did not make sense to them, or somewhat disturbingly, they did not think the victim deserved anonymity in this case. One taunted the authorities to sue him for it if they dared (apparently unaware that this is not a civil matter, it is a criminal one; naming a victim of a sexual offence is itself a sexual offence).Others clearly knew the legal position, but were intent on defying it because it did not make sense to them, or somewhat disturbingly, they did not think the victim deserved anonymity in this case. One taunted the authorities to sue him for it if they dared (apparently unaware that this is not a civil matter, it is a criminal one; naming a victim of a sexual offence is itself a sexual offence).
This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the behaviour of those on social media: not those who were confused, but those who decided that because the law did not make sense to them, they would identify the victim anyway.This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the behaviour of those on social media: not those who were confused, but those who decided that because the law did not make sense to them, they would identify the victim anyway.
A similar situation arose in the case of Ched Evans, a Sheffield and Wales footballer convicted of rape. Wrongly believing his victim was soon to waive her anonymity in order to sell her story to the papers (she never did, by the way) they took to Twitter to name her and attack her. Several of them were tracked down by North Wales police and convicted as a result.A similar situation arose in the case of Ched Evans, a Sheffield and Wales footballer convicted of rape. Wrongly believing his victim was soon to waive her anonymity in order to sell her story to the papers (she never did, by the way) they took to Twitter to name her and attack her. Several of them were tracked down by North Wales police and convicted as a result.
This comes shortly after the CPS issued guidelines on the prosecution of offences on social media.This comes shortly after the CPS issued guidelines on the prosecution of offences on social media.
The case is yet another that points to the challenge posed by social media publication to laws drafted before such media were even invented. Traditional media could generally be relied upon not to deliberately name victims, although there have been notorious examples of them failing to adhere to the law on occasion.The case is yet another that points to the challenge posed by social media publication to laws drafted before such media were even invented. Traditional media could generally be relied upon not to deliberately name victims, although there have been notorious examples of them failing to adhere to the law on occasion.
Once could argue that identification in one tweet is not as damaging as identification in a newspaper, but the potential for retweeting, permanence and searchability of online publication must be considered.Once could argue that identification in one tweet is not as damaging as identification in a newspaper, but the potential for retweeting, permanence and searchability of online publication must be considered.
Ignorance of the law in some cases, and a willingness to ignore it in others, seem to be challenging the law's ability to protect victims of sexual offences.Ignorance of the law in some cases, and a willingness to ignore it in others, seem to be challenging the law's ability to protect victims of sexual offences.
David Banks is a journalist and media law consultantDavid Banks is a journalist and media law consultant
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.