The Dutch and the British governments are currently addressing issues of freedom of information in social and traditional media.

Today the Dutch home affairs minister Piet Hein Donner has announced he will restrict freedom of information laws because they are being "misused" by journalists looking for a story.

He attributed the development to costs, explaining that "dozens" of civil servants dedicate their workdays to answering questions and providing documentation.

The service was intended to allow citizens the right to see government documents, but Hein Donner said earlier this month that journalists are using it to "fire off random shots in the hope of hitting something".

His definition of citizen is a bit puzzling, as it excludes journalists. From this perspective, it is not the press' job to be a check on the government. Only individuals not seeking to publish should have access to information. This is a surprising move from the Dutch government, as only six years ago it was ranked in first place in a press freedom index conducted by Reporters without Borders.

The British legal system has also found itself grappling with freedom of information. In its effort to shield individuals' privacy, its adversary is Twitter. The social media giant is able to circumvent traditional press, allowing members to use the medium to broadcast rumors quickly and anonymously.

That is, until now.

A British man, Ahmed Khan, had been using his account to accuse local government representatives in the North of England of rigging votes, corruption, even taking drugs. His targets decided to sue him for defamation, but nobody was sure of his identity. They filed a legal complaint to Twitter headquarters, and Twitter released the information of the man in question.

"Until now, Twitter has resisted releasing information about its users" reported the Telegraph, referencing the case with Ryan Giggs in which Twitter refused to release details of a user that had leaked that Giggs had been issued an injunction.

However, Khan revealed that Twitter had notified him that they had been asked to reveal his details, and he chose not to fight the order in California due to legal costs. This doesn't indicate a huge breach of Twitter's privacy policy, which does state that it will release information to "comply with a regulation or legal request".

Lawyers are still pursuing the Twitter user who released the classified information about Giggs. On May 20th, the High Court in London issued a search warrant against Twitter, but the warrant holds no legal status in the U.S. and Twitter did not comply.

Gigaom speculates as to why one man's identity was revealed while the other remains anonymous, but the answer can be found in the company's privacy statement. Khan violated the local law against defamation by spreading false statements. Twitter was faced with a violation of law and spreading of untrue statements, and notified him that his information would be released. The case pursued by Ryan Giggs applies to U.K. law, but the information released was true and does not have a corresponding law in the U.S (Britain is notorious for its tough libel law).

The British government may manage to win the privacy fight yet. Twitter recently purchased Tweetdeck, a London-based company. The geographic proximity may force Twitter to divulge the privacy details in question or face legal consequences.

Social media users will be more reluctant to use sites like Twitter if they know that their private information could be divulged. Restricting freedom of information can only hurt journalists and social media sites, but governments have become mistrustful in the current Wikileaks climate in which private cables have been leaked and government websites hacked. Perhaps it is in reaction to this that the British and Danish government have gone on the defensive, delivering a blow to the media's flow of information.

Source: Dutch News, Reporters without Borders, The Telegraph, Gigaom

Photo credit: Portsmouth City Council