Ljs: Ryan Giggs and the enemies of web freedom

Ryan Giggs failed to gag the media by superinjunction, but he may yet find powerful allies seeking to rein in the internet

Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs need not despair, even though his modest misdeeds are now the best-known affair since Bill Clinton's dalliance with a White House intern. He has allies in his battle to bring free speech back under the thumb of the ruling class: in China and Saudi Arabia, of course, but also these days in Hollywood, Washington and Paris. This emerging alliance is working every day, backed by enormous financial and political resources, to bring the internet under firm control.

A day ago, his name would not have appeared when this piece showed up on the Guardian website (even though I'm writing this in California, the words would be published on a British site). And until a member of parliament uttered it in session, Giggs's name was barred for use in British media under a "superinjunction" issued by a judge whose goal was to protect the athlete's privacy. And as word of his name spread on the internet, a legal mess ensued.

The case became surreal. The athlete's lawyers argued, and the judge in the case agreed, that not only was posting the player's name on Twitter a violation, which had been done tens of thousands of times by then, but that also Twitter itself, despite being a US company, must follow UK law. It's a classic example of the law being unsuited to reality, as even Prime Minister David Cameron has acknowledged.

To Americans, it's also an example of the United Kingdom's hostility to norms of free speech that we take for granted. Legal prior restraint to prohibit speech is generally an anathema in the land of the first amendment, and this situation is especially odious given the superinjunction's effect: to protect a member of the rich and powerful class.

It's difficult to sympathise with any of the parties in this case, especially the British tabloids and gossip websites that, like their counterparts around the world, traffic in rumour, voyeurism and mini-scandal that shames honourable journalism. In a world where honour in media meant anything, the gossipmongers would grant even spoiled babies like Giggs and his lover a modicum of privacy.

But Giggs and his friend, and all of those in the moneyed and powerful class, do operate under different rules to the rest of us. They want those rules to stick. For all the idiocy of this case, they are on a relentless mission to regain their grip.

And now it's not just the rulers in places like China and Saudi Arabia who want control. In particular, Americans who smirk at the lunacy in London should not be smug. In the US, an unholy alliance among government, the entertainment industry and the broadband data providers is emerging. Claiming the absolute need to eradicate such things as copyright infringement, WikiLeaks-style disclosures and whatever else they don't like, they are concocting legislation that would do violence to free speech. President Obama, breaking yet more of the promises he made as a candidate, has made common cause with the people who want to turn the internet into a more interactive form of cable television and not much more.

The latest push to curb American speech is the so-called "Protect IP" act, legislation designed (among other things) to censor the web's most elemental unit: the hyperlink. If enacted, it could be used, for example, to force search engines to stop linking to sites deemed improper. Google's Eric Schmidt, speaking to reporters in London last week, properly called this legislation an abomination.

Meanwhile, French leader Nicolas Sarkozy is hosting the "eG8" forum in Paris ? ironically, subtitled "The Internet: Accelerating Growth" ? and using the conference to push for harsh new controls over the internet and how it can be used. Already, France has enacted a law designed to block internet usage for people who are accused three times of infringing copyrights. Sarkozy has made it absolutely clear that it's time to rein in this resource ? and he has lots of company.

Back in New York this week, another conference is taking place. It's called TechCrunch Disrupt. Its mission is to highlight technologies and ideas that are contributing to the disruption of business as usual. The disruption the organisers should be talking about, in my view, is the one that's most dangerous of all: these global moves that would force "disruptive" companies to ask permission before they could launch new products and services ? permission that would rarely be granted by incumbents who want to keep their money and power.

So, back to Ryan Giggs. He is fighting for a principle the wealthy and powerful have always defended: a right to operate under different rules to the common people. In the end, with the help of these pals in high places, he may win, after all.