If you use Twitter then you’ve probably heard about all the super injunction news going on at the moment. If you haven’t, then a short summary would be that a lot of celebrities have got super injunctions preventing the media from releasing certain negative news stories about them. This has lead to twitter accounts being setup to release information about the celebrities so that the injunction becomes almost useless.

There’s no way I’m going to talk about any of the people mentioned on Twitter here – I don’t think that just because someone is using Twitter that they are immune from prosecution. I don’t really understand the law behind it – but surely if there is an injunction then Twitter is just a different type of mass media and still under the same law?

I do understand that people are very worried about the fact that the media seems to be being controlled by people who’re rich – no one without a lot of money would be able to afford a super injunction – but I’m going to be closely following what happens with this case. It’ll be interesting to see whether any of the people on Twitter re charged.

The other problem is can you really trust someone on Twitter who comes out with a story? I bet if I went onto Twitter now an used the right hashtag to make up a story then it would be around the internet in minutes and accepted as fact. You can’t trust the newspapers that much, but they have more to lose from lying than some guy on a new twitter account.