Super-Injunctions Vs The Internet

Miss Panda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
583
Trophies
0
XP
339
Country
Just to say first I'm not naming or alluding to the names of individuals concerned nor will I link to the twitter account (don't PM me). It is still there and EASY to find.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/A..._Of_Celebrities
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/A...201105215988052
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13330409
Last night a twitter account published the names of people allegedly involved in 6 super-injunctions. These injunctions have been the cause of much media discussion in recent weeks. Particularly one where the man took out the injunction protecting his privacy but not the privacy of the woman concerned. Her name is all over the press.

So my question is what do you think, is this as many media commentators are saying, an abuse of the court system by the very richest in society which allows them to buy rights the rest of us don't have? And the question many media commentators are asking now is can they really prosecute some random on the internet for discussing gossip.

What is more scary still is this
QUOTE said:
Later this week, the European court of human rights will publish its findings on what may become a landmark judgment in privacy, the case of the formula one boss Max Mosley. He is seeking a ruling that would require advance notice from the media of any report that deals with any aspect of an individual's privacy. If the court finds in his favour it will change the legal landscape.
Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/0...ils-injunctions

To those not in Britain read the spoiler below (and no it doesn't contain the names)

To those not in Britain, we have had a rake of super-injunctions taken out by the rich and famous lately. These injunctions are designed to stop the press naming individuals involved in certain situations that they find embarrassing. They don't just face fines if they publish, they face jail. The rights and wrongs of these super-injunctions are so talked about at the moment that even the Prime Minister has commented that they make him feel uncomfortable. And one MP has threatened to out those involved in parliament. They cost in the region of 150,000 GBPs (@245,475 US dollars). And they are the preserve of only the very richest in society.
 

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
33,855
Trophies
2
Website
trastindustries.com
XP
22,576
Country
United Kingdom
Interesting- you will hear not argument from me against a statement along the lines of the libel and slander laws are in serious need of an overhaul (as are many laws that were forged before the communications and tech boom- this is where it might get interesting if we tried to rank them of what order things need to be sorted in)

There have been some interesting workarounds as well- see things like trademarking a group name (notably groups like the Hell's angels)

Equally I will quite happily hear a debate on what is in the public interest (a pseudo legal term) vs the interest of (some) members of the public (pandering to those that like to gawk at ultimately irrelevant things) but I can see resulting things have no easy way to draw a line in the sand.

I know it was more of a US thing but certain courts have ruled in various directions on matters of what is and is not news media (protections of sources- Apple had a case a couple of years back) which could also throw a wrench into things and maybe even go some way to pushing the internet as a more viable source of news.

Things I am reminded of at this point

D-notice ("national security" concept- not sure if they are still available or there is a successor)

The IRA era treatment of Sinn Fein politicos (dubbing them on TV)

I can equally get to it being a "laws for the rich" thing which cuts to the very heart of UK law and a lot of recent and not so recent history (it is called common law for a reason).
 

Miss Panda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
583
Trophies
0
XP
339
Country
FAST6191 said:
Interesting- you will hear not argument from me against a statement along the lines of the libel and slander laws are in serious need of an overhaul (as are many laws that were forged before the communications and tech boom- this is where it might get interesting if we tried to rank them of what order things need to be sorted in)

There have been some interesting workarounds as well- see things like trademarking a group name (notably groups like the Hell's angels)

Equally I will quite happily hear a debate on what is in the public interest (a pseudo legal term) vs the interest of (some) members of the public (pandering to those that like to gawk at ultimately irrelevant things) but I can see resulting things have no easy way to draw a line in the sand.

I know it was more of a US thing but certain courts have ruled in various directions on matters of what is and is not news media (protections of sources- Apple had a case a couple of years back) which could also throw a wrench into things and maybe even go some way to pushing the internet as a more viable source of news.

Things I am reminded of at this point

D-notice ("national security" concept- not sure if they are still available or there is a successor)

The IRA era treatment of Sinn Fein politicos (dubbing them on TV)

I can equally get to it being a "laws for the rich" thing which cuts to the very heart of UK law and a lot of recent and not so recent history (it is called common law for a reason).
That is the thing though this is like legislation through the back door. Because these cases are decided based on a judges whim not on the basis of legislation. We don't have a privacy law so they cherry pick from the human rights act. Depending on whos side the judge is on, public or individual. Certainly most of the injunctions appear to be issued to the vacuous to prevent their vacuous (usually sexual) shenanigans being found out. It is the principle of the thing, Zlebs misusing the courts. If they want to fight it out in heat magazine fine but keep their nonsense out of the courts.

They are now saying that twitter can be sued despite being a US based company.
laugh.gif
Yeah good luck with that, idiots.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twit...s-answered.html

I think the internet will be the final downfall for this stupidity. Short of shutting it down what can they do.

Re:Dubbing SinnFein that was like something out of Monty Python. British legal stupidity at its very finest.

D-Notices
I remember them. There was one issued during the Soham Investigation I think only for 24hrs or so. They call them DA notices now apparently, I just googled.
wink.gif
But they are still voluntary and generally only used for a decent reason. So where the press releasing certain info about a current missing child case could put the child at risk. Or national security. They don't seem to be misused, I suppose their voluntary nature means that if the government did try to misuse them then the press would say, get stuffed.
 

cwstjdenobs

Sodomy non sapiens
Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,756
Trophies
0
Location
Ankh-Morpork
Website
Visit site
XP
205
Country
You might want to mention in the spoiler that your not actually meant to even mention the injunction exists, hence the super in the name.

But TBH the current cases don't look to matter too much. I don't care if some celebs or footy players screw around. Now if it was an MP who campaigns as a family man, then it would be important, and if this "making the law up to suit the persons wallet" shit continues we may never find out if it does.

Just used that MP analogy 'cause it fits with the known and rumoured super-injunctions in the current batch. I could see these being well abused by big business given the chance.
 

Miss Panda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
583
Trophies
0
XP
339
Country
cwstjdenobs said:
You might want to mention in the spoiler that your not actually meant to even mention the injunction exists, hence the super in the name.

But TBH the current cases don't look to matter too much. I don't care if some celebs or footy players screw around. Now if it was an MP who campaigns as a family man, then it would be important, and if this "making the law up to suit the persons wallet" shit continues we may never find out if it does.

Just used that MP analogy 'cause it fits with the known and rumoured super-injunctions in the current batch. I could see these being well abused by big business given the chance.
I can only say I agree with every word and yeah forgot to mention that they can't say the name of a person and say that a super injunction about them even exists. Thanks for that
smile.gif


EDIT: On the upside putting super injunction into twitter brings up some stuff of national importance.
The LibDems have apparently taken out a super injunction that prevents the election results being made public.
Jack Dee is denying he took out an S-J to prevent photos of him eating at Harvester being made public.
And a certain footballer is suing his legal team because 'his name' Injunction' becomes first autofill option on Google.


PS. Offtopic/ I did write a reply to you in the cannibal thread, but as is usual for me it was an essay and a half so I never dared post it.
ph34r.gif
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    Sonic Angel Knight @ Sonic Angel Knight: Hey, where the admins at? Come in the chat. I got a idea. How bout a Sound notification or...