Talk about social media coming of age. Was a flurry of angry tweets on Twitter responsible for getting a 'Kafka-esque' gagging order on reporting a Parliamentary question lifted?
Despite a long-established tradition that reports of parliamentary proceedings are protected from legal action, The Guardian was not allowed to mention a question tabled by an MP for answer by a minister later this week.
The paper was barred from reporting who the MP was, which minister would answer the question, where it might be found, or even why the gagging order was in place.
Until yesterday.
To start with Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg wrote on Twitter that he was "very interested" and "concerned" about the issue and would be taking action.
Before long the social networking site was alive with posts condemning the ban.
When the injunction was lifted The Guardian described the decision as a "great victory for free speech" and the paper's editor, Alan Rusbridger, used Twitter to break the news.
Whether Twitter was genuinely a powerful lever in all this, or just a valve through which the outraged could let off steam, is open to debate.
What's beyond doubt is that social networking has potential far beyond what many people envisaged.
And the Parliamentary question? It relates to an earlier injunction blocking publication of a report commissioned by the oil trader Trafigura.>
