Superinjunctions

[t8yman]

I'm surprised there isnt a thread discussing these, I'm aware its very shaky ground legally for Neil, but surely we can discuss the matter without mentioning ANY names?

What prompted me to start the thread was just hearing Hugh Grant say that he wishes the redtops would go out of business because all they report is tittle tattle. As much as I despise much of what is published in the redtops (and some of the blacktops too) I find it very short sighted to want to gag the press in this country. There have been a few occasions where the redtops have exposed corruption and hypocrisy, and for that I am grateful.

what are other peoples thoughts on freedom of the press/gagging orders?

I personally think that if SI's need to exist, then they should be available to the less wealthy too. Twitter really has put paid to their effectiveness anyway.

[jump]

I use to work for a media company and would found a loads of stuff I'm not meant to and would tell people in the pub anyway.

How come politicians are allowed to break the injections without getting into trouble?

[eFestivals]

I'm surprised there isnt a thread discussing these, I'm aware its very shaky ground legally for Neil, but surely we can discuss the matter without mentioning ANY names?

while I'm not 100% certain, I think it's the case that these injunctions are only broken if you know for certain who the person involved is. I don't think an injunction is broken by guessing at who it might be, even if it turns out to be correct.

So I'm going to guess that the instance all over today's papers is Ryan Giggs, seeing as that's the name that's been going around.

Just in case someone thinks I'm trying to tell you who it is via that method, I'm not. I don't have a clue, but I have seen Giggs' name floating around the 'net about that one. If you google the female's name that's involved (who I forget), you'll see that for yourself.

What prompted me to start the thread was just hearing Hugh Grant say that he wishes the redtops would go out of business because all they report is tittle tattle. As much as I despise much of what is published in the redtops (and some of the blacktops too) I find it very short sighted to want to gag the press in this country. There have been a few occasions where the redtops have exposed corruption and hypocrisy, and for that I am grateful.

what are other peoples thoughts on freedom of the press/gagging orders?

I personally think that if SI's need to exist, then they should be available to the less wealthy too. Twitter really has put paid to their effectiveness anyway.

I think that, to a certain level, Hugh Grant has a point. Most of what they publish is 'tittle tattle', of no consequence to wider society, and only of interest to people with an overly large liking for gossip nothing to do with them.

On the other side of things, there's one particular judge - Judge Eady (I think) - who's been responsible for most of these injunctions, while also having a history for allowing what gets referred to as "libel tourism", which is when a libel case is brought in the UK but which has very little relevance to the UK (because the offending article was published in, say, a Russian newspaper that's not distributed or read in the UK). The 'libel tourism' needs to be stopped, because any country's legal jurisdiction should stop at its own borders.

But all in all I much prefer these issues being dealt with by a judge (just not Eady ) to the govt introducing some new law. Any new law would have to draw a very solid line of what is allowed and what isn't - which would ultimately impact on the things we should be allowed to be told, whereas when it's done by a judge he weighs up whether the public has right to know about something which is really their concern with the privacy issues of those involved.

The down side of that is the costs of the legal actions which makes such things a preserve of the rich, but that's ultimately to do with the stupid money that the legal profession charges for doing very very little. The costs could and should be reduced by reforming how the legal profession operates, rather than a change in the laws that they're dealing with.

[Snufflebutt]

Everyone who cares about who the people are now knows. My link The Daily Mail is practically telling you who is involved in the superinjunctions here. Hugh Bonneville is the Ryan Giggs of the showbusiness word

[t8yman]

Without doubt there are many many situations where an individuals name should be kept out of the picture, however being caught with your pants down shouldn't really be one of them IMHO unless there are extenuating circumstances. It is widely believed that Giggs is the man involved in the current case involving blackmail. One of the other widely believed stories about the sadist and the prostitutes is a little more troubling. a member of the public that couldn't afford a SI wouldn't be able to have their name kept out of the public domain, so why should he? And in the meantime he is still able to indulge his desires with women who might otherwise refuse his company if they knew what he was accused of.

On the flipside, the treatment of Chris Jefferies illustrates perfectly why the press need to understand their role in society to report the news accurately and impartially, and to avoid tittle tattle and salacious gossip, which ultimately can ruin innocent individuals lives.

Its a bit of a minefield really. Is there any truth to the claims that you are only bound by an injunction if you have been served it?

[eFestivals]

Without doubt there are many many situations where an individuals name should be kept out of the picture, however being caught with your pants down shouldn't really be one of them IMHO unless there are extenuating circumstances.

while I agree with that from one angle, from another I don't.

After all, who's business is it that two people might be shagging each other, outside of the people directly involved and those directly affected by it (such as their partners)?

The saddest part really is that a large part of the general public think that such things is worthy news, and want to know a;ll the details.

Is there any truth to the claims that you are only bound by an injunction if you have been served it?

Nope, that part is defo not true.

I believe it's the case that a person can only be in contempt of an injunction if they're made aware of the injunction's existence - which of course all becomes rather difficult in the case of these 'super injunctions' where people aren't supposed to know who has taken out an injunction.

The last issue of Private Eye detailed the contact they'd had from Andrew Marr's legal representatives over his 'super injunction', telling them that they couldn't publish what the legal representative couldn't tell them they couldn't publish - it was laughable. But as far as major media goes, it's unlikely that they could successfully claim that they didn't know of the existence of an injunction.

A few years back I got a copy of an injunction sent to me - about one of the people involved in the Bulger murder, where the injunctions stop their new identities and where they live being revealed. eFestivals was on the list of media/publishers that one of those murders' legal representatives was using to inform the people on the list of the existence of the injunction.

[feral chile]

I don't think the media should be able to publish details of sexual indiscretions, unless the public figure is hypo0critically trading on a false public image.

[t8yman]

while I agree with that from one angle, from another I don't.

After all, who's business is it that two people might be shagging each other, outside of the people directly involved and those directly affected by it (such as their partners)?

The saddest part really is that a large part of the general public think that such things is worthy news, and want to know a;ll the details.

What about the old cliches such as the mp who votes against gay rights, yet is secretly gay?

I agree that in the vast majority of snagging stories it's just kiss and tell for money, but what about when hypocrisy or corruption is exposed by such stories?

Nope, that part is defo not true.

I believe it's the case that a person can only be in contempt of an injunction if they're made aware of the injunction's existence - which of course all becomes rather difficult in the case of these 'super injunctions' where people aren't supposed to know who has taken out an injunction.

The last issue of Private Eye detailed the contact they'd had from Andrew Marr's legal representatives over his 'super injunction', telling them that they couldn't publish what the legal representative couldn't tell them they couldn't publish - it was laughable. But as far as major media goes, it's unlikely that they could successfully claim that they didn't know of the existence of an injunction.

A few years back I got a copy of an injunction sent to me - about one of the people involved in the Bulger murder, where the injunctions stop their new identities and where they live being revealed. eFestivals was on the list of media/publishers that one of those murders' legal representatives was using to inform the people on the list of the existence of the injunction.

[t8yman]

See the iPad app forum for why that post was fecked up. And I can't edit it properly cos I'm using my iPad to read and post

Edited May 17, 2011 by t8yman

[eFestivals]

I don't think the media should be able to publish details of sexual indiscretions, unless the public figure is hypo0critically trading on a false public image.

That's pretty much the same as t8yman said in his poorly quoted post above.

I guess it comes down to the importance of that supposed hypocrisy. After all, hypocrisy is a standard human trait that we all suffer from to some extent.

If we take the story that's on the front of some of today's papers that's rumoured to be about Ryan Giggs as an example, and work from it as tho the rumour is true, then while it might be said that he's trading off a hypocritical image, who cares really? What does it matter? I can't see how it's our business.

The image he has isn't (as far as I'm aware) one that he's tried to create or contrive himself thru media manipulation, and his sexual morality isn't something which impacts on anything around his job. He's in the public eye only to be appreciated for his skills on the field, and nothing about what he may or may not do in bed with anyone affects anything about that. I can't see why there's any reason that the public should know.

Different of course is the example t8yman gave of "What about the old cliches such as the mp who votes against gay rights, yet is secretly gay?". That's something where there definitely is a reason why it should be exposed, because he's more than simply just a person in the public eye (which is the case with Giggs), he's someone who is operating in his job for direct impact onto the public.

It's because I don't have confidence in any govt to be able to word a new privacy law so that it's able to distinguish the 'public' difference of those two examples that I think what we have currently is about right, because a judge is able to have the case for and against laid out before him and make a decision from the facts (and if someone thinks the judge has got it wrong there's the opportunity to appeal too). Any law has to be written in as black-and-white way, which means that it's likely that either both cases get publicly exposed or neither of them.

[Snufflebutt]

while I agree with that from one angle, from another I don't.

After all, who's business is it that two people might be shagging each other, outside of the people directly involved and those directly affected by it (such as their partners)?

The saddest part really is that a large part of the general public think that such things is worthy news, and want to know a;ll the details.

Nope, that part is defo not true.

[eFestivals]

Its peoples business because, partly, many of these celebrities images are based on them being clean living - in fact I can think of no other celebrity that this applies to more than Ryan Giggs. A sponsor would not invest in a celebrity if they thought their morals coud be called into question. They make money off us (via paying for things that they are sponsored to wear) and so thats why its our business. I noticed the latest edition of what is in effect the Tiger Woods 2012 computer game has been renamed 'US Masters' - a perfect example of the importance sponsors and by extension us, place on moral values.

I do agree that it is pathetic that we want to read about it - and let's face it affairs are hardly uncommon in all walks of life - but then, thats says more about human nature than the national media imo.

- I think you've answered your own point there.

The sort of sponsorship you mention only works if you buy into the idea that they're some sort of super perfect being in the first place - which is of course stupid, because no one is that perfect.

But with the likes of Giggs or Woods, it's not them that's created that image for them, it's the likes of you and me - by believing that their excellence at sports is somehow mirrored in their private lives.

I've never bought any item because someone famous has said that I should. If others are more of a sucker for marketing then I suggest they look within themselves for their own faults rather than try and lay that off onto someone else who has nothing to do with it.

[feral chile]

That's pretty much the same as t8yman said in his poorly quoted post above.

I guess it comes down to the importance of that supposed hypocrisy. After all, hypocrisy is a standard human trait that we all suffer from to some extent.

If we take the story that's on the front of some of today's papers that's rumoured to be about Ryan Giggs as an example, and work from it as tho the rumour is true, then while it might be said that he's trading off a hypocritical image, who cares really? What does it matter? I can't see how it's our business.

The image he has isn't (as far as I'm aware) one that he's tried to create or contrive himself thru media manipulation, and his sexual morality isn't something which impacts on anything around his job. He's in the public eye only to be appreciated for his skills on the field, and nothing about what he may or may not do in bed with anyone affects anything about that. I can't see why there's any reason that the public should know.

Different of course is the example t8yman gave of "What about the old cliches such as the mp who votes against gay rights, yet is secretly gay?". That's something where there definitely is a reason why it should be exposed, because he's more than simply just a person in the public eye (which is the case with Giggs), he's someone who is operating in his job for direct impact onto the public.

It's because I don't have confidence in any govt to be able to word a new privacy law so that it's able to distinguish the 'public' difference of those two examples that I think what we have currently is about right, because a judge is able to have the case for and against laid out before him and make a decision from the facts (and if someone thinks the judge has got it wrong there's the opportunity to appeal too). Any law has to be written in as black-and-white way, which means that it's likely that either both cases get publicly exposed or neither of them.

Edited May 17, 2011 by feral chile

[t8yman]

And anyway, it's not all salacious gossip, what about the leather faced chef who took one out to stop him being named in a 2 tribunal cases.

[eFestivals]

And anyway, it's not all salacious gossip, what about the leather faced chef who took one out to stop him being named in a 2 tribunal cases.

reading back on what I've said, perhaps I should have made it clearer that my general opinion that "I think what we have currently is about right" needs to be considered outside of what the situation actually is right now with some of these injunctions.

I believe that the law is about right, but the operation of the law isn't. The problems that exist with the granting of some of the injunctions (as well as many 'libel tourist' cases) all come back to one particular judge - Judge Eady - and many other judges disagree with the angle he takes on these things.

If someone got around to sacking that particular individual then I suspect that those issues will simply vanish.

[al_coholic]

Apparently the individual who has taken out a superinjunction in the Imogen Thomas affair is now suing twitter because everyone is posting his name. I am not sure that there is much twitter can do to stop people posting. I am not sure whether anyone on twitter actually knows for sure that this person is the right person or if someone has guessed and everyone has just jumped on the band wagon.

The fact is that this person does have a super injunction and while that exists he has the protection of the law rightly or wrongly.

In the case of the named person, his public image is somewhat different to that being spread by Imogen Thomas and therefore I guess there is a public interest angle to the story.

[pehaw]

Right, not sure where this post is going but here is a graph

Nicked from The Guardian.

"... It gives you an idea of the spike in Twitter mentions of said footballer's surname on the social media site in the late afternoon after it emerged that his legal team had launched an action against Twitter to try and restrain mentions of his name online. You can decide if it worked...."

Left axis, number of mentions. Right axis time. (That spike represents about 0.1% of all tweets at that point in time)

He's getting the same number of mentions as he does every week during and after a United game, which is a pretty phenomenal f**k up by his lawyers whose aim is to stop his name being mentioned.

(BTW - the source of the graph is trendistic - which is pretty clever stuff - have a look at this http://trendistic.com/giggs/_30-days - the Shalke game on April 26th saw tweets mentioning Giggs running at about 0.2% of all tweets.)

I think he needs some new advisers.

[diddly-dee]

Right, not sure where this post is going but here is a graph

Nicked from The Guardian.

"... It gives you an idea of the spike in Twitter mentions of said footballer's surname on the social media site in the late afternoon after it emerged that his legal team had launched an action against Twitter to try and restrain mentions of his name online. You can decide if it worked...."

Left axis, number of mentions. Right axis time. (That spike represents about 0.1% of all tweets at that point in time)

He's getting the same number of mentions as he does every week during and after a United game, which is a pretty phenomenal f**k up by his lawyers whose aim is to stop his name being mentioned.

(BTW - the source of the graph is trendistic - which is pretty clever stuff - have a look at this http://trendistic.com/giggs/_30-days - the Shalke game on April 26th saw tweets mentioning Giggs running at about 0.2% of all tweets.)

I think he needs some new advisers.

[brighteyes]

They were talking about these super-injunctions on something, maybe it was Ian Hislop on HIGNFY. The newspapers have to be told about the super-injunctions to avoid accidently printing the story and not knowing there is a super-injunction on it, which makes me wonder why you'd even bother getting one. It's bound to get out by some means, and restricting it seems to ensure receiving the most attention possible. I just don't see the point. Keep your f**king dick in your pants, or get a divorce, easy.

[Alcatraz]

They were talking about these super-injunctions on something, maybe it was Ian Hislop on HIGNFY. The newspapers have to be told about the super-injunctions to avoid accidently printing the story and not knowing there is a super-injunction on it, which makes me wonder why you'd even bother getting one. It's bound to get out by some means, and restricting it seems to ensure receiving the most attention possible. I just don't see the point. Keep your f**king dick in your pants, or get a divorce, easy.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Alcatraz

[minute5072]

Sunday Herald front cover is a picture of the footballer in question with a very thin black banner covering his eyes

[harderfaster]

Sunday Herald front cover is a picture of the footballer in question with a very thin black banner covering his eyes

[Snufflebutt]

Edited May 22, 2011 by Snufflebutt

[rexclark]

So who is it then?

[metallimuse]

I appreciate that Giggs deserves what he gets for cheating on his wife but cant help but feel sorry for him considering how much it has blown up in his face.

If it had just been reported that he cheated it would have been front page news for a week then been put back to back 10 or so but because of the injuction it has rumbled on for weeks as front page news and he hasnt even officially been named yet.