Superinjunction threads

[Marf]

ZOLLAR said:

Eric Mc said:

Don't you see the bigger picture?

This is not about footballers or celebrities.

This is about rich individuals or organisations harnessing the power of the legal system to effectively silence you and me.
This is a VERY, VERY important moment in British legal history and the way it goes will have a fundamental efect on the basic human right of free speech in this country.

Well put.

Hear hear.

[Steameh]

Eric Mc said:

Don't you see the bigger picture?

This is not about footballers or celebrities.

This is about rich individuals or organisations harnessing the power of the legal system to effectively silence you and me.
This is a VERY, VERY important moment in British legal history and the way it goes will have a fundamental efect on the basic human right of free speech in this country.

So Joe Bloggs has the right to have his affairs kept out of the national press, but those who are lucky enough to make it somewhere in life don't have the right to keep their private life private?

Hardly seems fair to me.

[dmitsi]

dmitsi said:

What's the point in this 'forum' if we have to run our thoughts past PH for censorship approval.

Mod Edit: Did you not read a) The OP, or b) The T&Cs?

You can post what you like on your own site but, to be blunt, this is Haymarket's playground and they call the rules.

Edited by Justayellowbadge on Tuesday 24th May 16:27

And as a mark of respect I've deleted my second attempt to post my comment about missing Wales. I'll let that one go, but s will always be s.

[Oakey]

Steameh said:

So Joe Bloggs has the right to have his affairs kept out of the national press, but those who are lucky enough to make it somewhere in life don't have the right to keep their private life private?

Hardly seems fair to me.

Way to miss the point.

So you're happy for a company to apply for and be granted an injunction that stopped the press reporting they were dumping toxic waste into the sea?

[Steameh]

Oakey said:

Way to miss the point.

So you're happy for a company to apply for and be granted an injunction that stopped the press reporting they were dumping toxic waste into the sea?

Way to take what I was referring to in a completely different scenario.

I'd rather leave that decision in the hands of a Judge who has the ability to look at the injunction from a position of total neutrality, than have irresponsible journalists trying to make a fast buck from the latest celebrity sex scandal.

[MonkeyHanger]

Will the PH "team" also be clamping down on the sort of wild speculation that we see in threads about high profile missing persons / murder cases, much of which is posted by people who should know better, or are the Haymarket Lawyers content that the Little People (aka non Premier League Footballers) will not be in a position to sue?

[Oakey]

MonkeyHanger said:

Will the PH "team" also be clamping down on the sort of wild speculation that we see in threads about high profile missing persons / murder cases, much of which is posted by people who should know better, or are the Haymarket Lawyers content that the Little People (aka non Premier League Footballers) will not be in a position to sue?

Is that the 'wild speculation' that has been formed based on the conclusions of two police forces from two different countries?

[MonkeyHanger]

Oakey said:

Is that the 'wild speculation' that has been formed based on the conclusions of two police forces from two different countries?

It's the wild speculation that forms within hours of someone going missing when threads asking "how long before the boyfriend is arrested" spring up.

[miln0039]

Epic thread alert anybody?

[Garlick]

MonkeyHanger said:

Will the PH "team" also be clamping down on the sort of wild speculation that we see in threads about high profile missing persons / murder cases, much of which is posted by people who should know better, or are the Haymarket Lawyers content that the Little People (aka non Premier League Footballers) will not be in a position to sue?

I think we are fairly open and relaxed with our attitudes to most things, but these injunctions are an extraordinary case and we must abide by the rules as publishers. Look at the numbers of readers we have these days, gone are the days when we can hide from legal eyes, a thread that contradicts the terms of the injunction will be on page one of Google before you can say Speed Matters.

If other matters arise that need attention, report to us in the usual way.

[Hugo a Gogo]

Oakey said:

MonkeyHanger said:

Will the PH "team" also be clamping down on the sort of wild speculation that we see in threads about high profile missing persons / murder cases, much of which is posted by people who should know better, or are the Haymarket Lawyers content that the Little People (aka non Premier League Footballers) will not be in a position to sue?

Is that the 'wild speculation' that has been formed based on the conclusions of two police forces from two different countries?

Are they the official conclusions? let me help you, no

or the latest speculation that the whole thing was a money making scheme

sick

[Fish]

The stupidity of a super injunction is no one has sent me a list of what I can't talk about. Apparently the newspapers have one. Therefore if I see newspapers talking about an affair between "Someone" and "Someone Else" then clearly that isn't part of a super injunction or they wouldn't be able to say it surely? And I've not had a letter from the high court saying I can't talk about it therefore I see no reason why I can't.

The whole problem with a secret injunction is no one knows about it! Therefore if people talk about it they surely can't perjure the court as they don't know about the injunction, UNLESS the court made them aware of it and they went against the court....

So either the court tells the whole country not to talk about it.... which isn't the case or we talk about it happily as the media currently are as they therefore can't be breaching the injunction as they are talking about it...

I hope I make sense but it is all stupid.

Edited by Fish on Tuesday 24th May 17:00

[mattmurdock]

MonkeyHanger said:

Will the PH "team" also be clamping down on the sort of wild speculation that we see in threads about high profile missing persons / murder cases, much of which is posted by people who should know better, or are the Haymarket Lawyers content that the Little People (aka non Premier League Footballers) will not be in a position to sue?

It is nothing to do with suing, it is to do with being found in contempt of court and therefore committing a criminal act.

Given that the PCC have apparently said they would have killed the story anyway without an injunction, as the story was not in the public interest, I think it is a little unfair that he/she/it is being used as a poster boy/girl/thing for freedom of speech against rich corporations.

Do the people complaining about injunctions really think that the press should be free to print whatever they like whenever they like, and the onus should be on the person to then challenge their claims in court? I am all for freedom of press, but the idea should be that the allegations are both in the public interest and have strong evidential backing - and the idea of the injunctions is that a judge will decide if that is the case, and only award the injunction if it is not.

If injunctions were removed completely, what would you have in their place?

[Eric Mc]

Steameh said:

Oakey said:

Way to miss the point.

So you're happy for a company to apply for and be granted an injunction that stopped the press reporting they were dumping toxic waste into the sea?

Way to take what I was referring to in a completely different scenario.

I'd rather leave that decision in the hands of a Judge who has the ability to look at the injunction from a position of total neutrality, than have irresponsible journalists trying to make a fast buck from the latest celebrity sex scandal.

If injunctions are allowed, you will see many, many individuals WHO CAN AFFORD TO TAKE THEM OUT using them to silence free speech. I think that freedom of speech ranks WAY higher on the list of priorities than the right of the rich, famous and powerful to keep their lives private.

There are more of us than them.

And finally, when I hear Polly Toynbee standing up for the rights of "you know who" to place an injunction, I know I must be right.

[10 Pence Short]

Garlick said:

I think we are fairly open and relaxed with our attitudes to most things, but these injunctions are an extraordinary case and we must abide by the rules as publishers. Look at the numbers of readers we have these days, gone are the days when we can hide from legal eyes, a thread that contradicts the terms of the injunction will be on page one of Google before you can say Speed Matters.

If other matters arise that need attention, report to us in the usual way.

Following legal advice, I would like to offer my apologies for the (now deleted) reply to this thread. I would like to assure all readers of PH that I am in fact against Wales hunting and hope this apology clears the matter once and for good.

[mrmr96]

mattmurdock said:

Do the people complaining about injunctions really think that the press should be free to print whatever they like whenever they like, and the onus should be on the person to then challenge their claims in court? I am all for freedom of press, but the idea should be that the allegations are both in the public interest and have strong evidential backing

I think you've perhaps missed the point.. or maybe I have.

The issue being discussed currently is about 'freedom of the press' which means they are able to print what they know.

Ths issue about accuracy is to do with 'libel', which means you can't print derogatory stuff that's not provably true.

Separate, but related, things.

[Blib]

So, lemme get this straight. If we mention this injunction chappy, Garlick goes to prison. Is that right?

[Steameh]

Eric Mc said:

If injunctions are allowed, you will see many, many individuals WHO CAN AFFORD TO TAKE THEM OUT using them to silence free speech. I think that freedom of speech ranks WAY higher on the list of priorities than the right of the rich, famous and powerful to keep their lives private.

There are more of us than them.

And finally, when I hear Polly Toynbee standing up for the rights of "you know who" to place an injunction, I know I must be right.

Perhaps.

I am just galled to see another paper headline on something that is by all rights a private matter. Maybe separate legislation is required solely for true private life matters.

[Eric Mc]

mrmr96 said:

mattmurdock said:

Do the people complaining about injunctions really think that the press should be free to print whatever they like whenever they like, and the onus should be on the person to then challenge their claims in court? I am all for freedom of press, but the idea should be that the allegations are both in the public interest and have strong evidential backing

I think you've perhaps missed the point.. or maybe I have.

The issue being discussed currently is about 'freedom of the press' which means they are able to print what they know.

Ths issue about accuracy is to do with 'libel', which means you can't print derogatory stuff that's not provably true.

Separate, but related, things.

This is not just a "press" issue. By attacking an internet website, the whole scope of these injunctions has suddenly spread to EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY, not just TV or the newspapers.

[Eric Mc]

Steameh said:

Eric Mc said:

If injunctions are allowed, you will see many, many individuals WHO CAN AFFORD TO TAKE THEM OUT using them to silence free speech. I think that freedom of speech ranks WAY higher on the list of priorities than the right of the rich, famous and powerful to keep their lives private.

There are more of us than them.

And finally, when I hear Polly Toynbee standing up for the rights of "you know who" to place an injunction, I know I must be right.

Perhaps.

I am just galled to see another paper headline on something that is by all rights a private matter. Maybe separate legislation is required solely for true private life matters.

The fight for privacy is over. It cannot be controlled anymore. If a person or a business has done something that they don't want the world to know about, perhaps, maybe, they shouldn't have done that thing in the first place.

If an organ of the media - whether it be a newspaper, TV or the internet, states something about somebody or some business that is incorrect, then, by all means, that media organisation can be sued for defamation, libel, slander or whatever. But to simply try and stop an organisation or an individual from telling the truth, just because the truth is unpallitable, is out of order.