Very interesting blog by Joani there.
Yes. This bit interests me:
Ms Wilson told the court: ‘There are two main issues. The first rests on whether Twitter is a public electronic communications network,’ which she said ‘had not been litigated in the high court
With regard to this, see:
The Communications Act 2003 was drawn up before the popularisation of social networking, and could not have foreseen how pervasive social networking would become in a short space of time. There remains ambiguity over what constitutes a public communications system. The original intent was to prevent the waste of public services funded by public money. Twitter and Facebook are "public" in the sense that they are free to use and open to view unless specified otherwise, they are not public services ; they are profit-making companies funded by investors and advertising.
During the Twitter Joke Trial, Paul Chambers' lawyers argued that there was no case to answer as Twitter did not constitute a public communications system in the nationalised sense. However, Judge Davies refuted this and argued that Twitter was based on the internet, which is a fundamentally public network[38] - despite being provided by a variety of profit-making ISPs, rather than being funded by the public for the public. Chambers' conviction was overturned by the High Court, but the definition of a public communications network still needs clarification.
wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003/Section_127#Controversies