o hai. i can haz injunction?
Alright, I’ll stop now. If you haven’t already closed your browser in disgust (and I don’t blame you if you have), you may be wondering what this is about. According to the ABA Journal, the highest court in the UK has allowed an anonymous blogger to be notified of an injunction through a Twitter message.
The blogger in question was impersonating a well-known English lawyer, Donal Blaney, who also happens to be a frequent conservative commentator. In his blog, the anonymous blogger apparently held himself out to be Blaney, and wrote articles under his name, promulgating caricatured political positions.
Because the identity of the anonymous blogger could not be readily ascertained, and Twitter was the easiest way to contact him, the court granted Blaney’s request to serve the injunction via Twitter. The Twitter message sent to the blogger contains a link to a copy of the injunction, and orders him to immediately cease impersonating Blaney, and to reveal his
This follows on the heels of a ruling by an Australian Court, a defendant was served with notice of a default judgment through Facebook.
Apparently, courts in Australia are well known for their tech savvy, already allowing service of process via email and text messages, so such a move is to be expected. The question, then, is when should we expect such forward-thinking actions from American courts? If I had to guess, I’d say we have a while to wait, considering that some of them haven’t yet mastered advanced staple technology.
In all seriousness, this does raise some interesting questions about how service of legal documents should be handled in the digital age. The courts of most U.S. states, and the federal government, call for service to be delivered personally, in a hard copy. This is certainly the preferable method, as it all but eliminates any uncertainty as to whether or not service was actually received. However, it’s not always possible, for a variety of reasons. In such cases, “substituted service” – leaving the documents with another member of the person’s household, or at their place of business, is acceptable, as is service by mail.
Really, though, given the fact that most people in the developed world use email, and many also use social networking sites, wouldn’t allowing service by electronic means make sense, at least if other methods of service fail? After all, you can now check your email on almost any device that has a screen, and most people check their email on a daily basis. It would be pretty hard for someone to claim with a straight face that they haven’t received service, if they could receive it via email.
Of course this raises issues, as well. Once it becomes accepted that you can receive notice of a lawsuit via email, it won’t be long before the scammers realize that they can separate fools from their money by emailing them fake summons, and telling them that this pesky lawsuit can go away for a reasonable fee.
So, there are a few kinks to work out of the system, but in cases such as this, when the defendant is clearly a real person, with ready means of contact, but cannot be identified for whatever reason, it seems that justice could be served much more efficiently if this method of service were allowed.