Superinjunction threads
Discussion
Hugo a Gogo said:
Are they the official conclusions? let me help you, no
or the latest speculation that the whole thing was a money making scheme
sick
Let me help you, there's more circumstantial evidence that points towards their involvement than there is circumstantial evidence the girl was abducted. or the latest speculation that the whole thing was a money making scheme
sick
Eric Mc said:
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.
One place we have to differ I'm afraid. Private life is just that, private. Success should not, and in my view, is not an excuse for papers to air dirty laundry of celebrities or successful people.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.
If they chose to have an affair that is their business, and their business alone and it should be kept in that private domain. Just because irresponsible tabloid journalism has become more prevalent, doesn't mean it has to stay the norm.
Wow, go into a meeting for an hour and it goes mental.
I've asked for some advice on what the specifics are of what can and can't be said, because it is a valid point. To the best of my knowledge though, if you know that an injunction exists about a person or company, then you break it by naming them. If you wildly speculate and happen to name someone in isolation who has an injunction against them, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to bring a case. In Tonker's post above, it could conceivably be argued that all the people he names would have no cause to be mentioned in the same sentence unless it were known by him that they had injunctions in common. So he'd be knackered..
Let's be clear about this though; we at PH towers are on the same side of the argument as most people on this thread. We think it is ludicrous, we think that this has been a momentous week for media law and for free speech, and there's no doubt that the law will need to change.
However we're talking about a criminal offence here, and the law still stands. We'll be the first to rejoice when the landscape is clarified by the law lords, but until that time anyone who breaks an injunction is at risk (however small that risk might be) of criminal prosecution, and we'd be in the dock with you. For that reason, we'll exercise our right as the publisher of this site to protect ourselves against such an eventuality.
Thank you to all the people who've shown respect for this point of view. Anyone who doesn't will very quickly find their posts moderated and their access to PH limited. We have made our position on this abundantly clear.
I've asked for some advice on what the specifics are of what can and can't be said, because it is a valid point. To the best of my knowledge though, if you know that an injunction exists about a person or company, then you break it by naming them. If you wildly speculate and happen to name someone in isolation who has an injunction against them, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to bring a case. In Tonker's post above, it could conceivably be argued that all the people he names would have no cause to be mentioned in the same sentence unless it were known by him that they had injunctions in common. So he'd be knackered..
Let's be clear about this though; we at PH towers are on the same side of the argument as most people on this thread. We think it is ludicrous, we think that this has been a momentous week for media law and for free speech, and there's no doubt that the law will need to change.
However we're talking about a criminal offence here, and the law still stands. We'll be the first to rejoice when the landscape is clarified by the law lords, but until that time anyone who breaks an injunction is at risk (however small that risk might be) of criminal prosecution, and we'd be in the dock with you. For that reason, we'll exercise our right as the publisher of this site to protect ourselves against such an eventuality.
Thank you to all the people who've shown respect for this point of view. Anyone who doesn't will very quickly find their posts moderated and their access to PH limited. We have made our position on this abundantly clear.
Steameh said:
One place we have to differ I'm afraid. Private life is just that, private. Success should not, and in my view, is not an excuse for papers to air dirty laundry of celebrities or successful people.
If they chose to have an affair that is their business, and their business alone and it should be kept in that private domain. Just because irresponsible tabloid journalism has become more prevalent, doesn't mean it has to stay the norm.
I disagree, if they're happy to ram their lives down our throat when it benefits them then they can't really complain when something negative is reported. If they chose to have an affair that is their business, and their business alone and it should be kept in that private domain. Just because irresponsible tabloid journalism has become more prevalent, doesn't mean it has to stay the norm.
Steameh said:
Eric Mc said:
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.
One place we have to differ I'm afraid. Private life is just that, private, success should not, and in my view, is not an excuse for papers to air dirty laundry of celebrities or successful people.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.
If they chose to have an affair that is their business, and their business alone and it should be kept in that private domain. Just because irresponsible tabloid journalism has become more prevalent, doesn't mean it has to stay the norm.
Those who have guilty secrets will just have to learn to live in a world where these secrets may be revealed at some point.
They could take out 100 injunctions to stop something coming out and it will have no effect whatsoever.
mrmr96 said:
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.
I understand that, hence my comment about public interest and evidence.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.
For example, if a journalist discovered that when you were younger, you had once taken £10 from a till at a place you worked, a £10 you subsequently replaced at a later date. Would you be happy for the journalist to write a front page story about this, which I am assuming would cause you embarrassment, and potentially be detrimental to your job prospects if people regarded you as potentially deceitful?
Or would you rather they didn't print it as it is not really in the public interest, happened a long time ago and frankly is between you and your current or ex-employer?
The issue is that people (and therefore a number of journalists) seem to believe that the private lives of celebrities should somehow always be in the public domain, and as a result these celebrities are having to take legal action to prevent journalists from publishing items that for a normal person would clearly not be in the public interest to reveal.
So again, without the injunctions, what would you suggest is done about that?
Steameh said:
One place we have to differ I'm afraid. Private life is just that, private, success should not, and in my view, is not an excuse for papers to air dirty laundry of celebrities or successful people.
If they chose to have an affair that is their business, and their business alone and it should be kept in that private domain. Just because irresponsible tabloid journalism has become more prevalent, doesn't mean it has to stay the norm.
It is not necessarially a private matter though. People make a choice to have an affair, and I guess most people assume that they won't get caught having an affair. However if you are well known you have to accept that you have a greater chance of getting caught.If they chose to have an affair that is their business, and their business alone and it should be kept in that private domain. Just because irresponsible tabloid journalism has become more prevalent, doesn't mean it has to stay the norm.
Now in the day to day world for most people if they have an affair it won't appear on the front page of The Sun. However if you were a local politican it might appear in your local paper, and you are unlikely to have the money necessary to get an injunction against it appearing.
However if you give an appearance of being a familay person, you appear on a football field with your children etc and you have companies sponsor you for your family image is it then right that you can hide the fact that your image is not so clean behind an injunction? I dont think it is.
The reality is if you dont want to appear in the papers then dont do things that will attract their attention and in particular don't be a hypocrite.
Stuart said:
I've asked for some advice on what the specifics are of what can and can't be said, because it is a valid point. To the best of my knowledge though, if you know that an injunction exists about a person or company, then you break it by naming them.
I know I am going to come across as very stupid indeed here but this is a genuine question.If there is an injunction to prevent a person being named in the press, can that person be named in another context. For example, could one comment about a sportsman's performance (can't think of a better word - sorry) during a game?
Can injunctions actually work anymore?
What jurisdiction would they apply to?
Surely a media outlet (especially one with international reach) can easily circumvent these injunctions by publishing what they want to publish in a jurisdiction not covered by the injunction -as we saw this week.
Forget the ethics - the case is lost - forever.
What jurisdiction would they apply to?
Surely a media outlet (especially one with international reach) can easily circumvent these injunctions by publishing what they want to publish in a jurisdiction not covered by the injunction -as we saw this week.
Forget the ethics - the case is lost - forever.
Chrisgr31 said:
It is not necessarially a private matter though. People make a choice to have an affair, and I guess most people assume that they won't get caught having an affair. However if you are well known you have to accept that you have a greater chance of getting caught.
Now in the day to day world for most people if they have an affair it won't appear on the front page of The Sun. However if you were a local politican it might appear in your local paper, and you are unlikely to have the money necessary to get an injunction against it appearing.
However if you give an appearance of being a familay person, you appear on a football field with your children etc and you have companies sponsor you for your family image is it then right that you can hide the fact that your image is not so clean behind an injunction? I dont think it is.
The reality is if you dont want to appear in the papers then dont do things that will attract their attention and in particular don't be a hypocrite.
Exactly, it cuts both ways. Otherwise we'd end up with a situation where everyone is perceived as a saint when in reality they could be a lying, deceiving piece of sNow in the day to day world for most people if they have an affair it won't appear on the front page of The Sun. However if you were a local politican it might appear in your local paper, and you are unlikely to have the money necessary to get an injunction against it appearing.
However if you give an appearance of being a familay person, you appear on a football field with your children etc and you have companies sponsor you for your family image is it then right that you can hide the fact that your image is not so clean behind an injunction? I dont think it is.
The reality is if you dont want to appear in the papers then dont do things that will attract their attention and in particular don't be a hypocrite.
t. mattviatura said:
If there is an injunction to prevent a person being named in the press, can that person be named in another context. For example, could one comment about a sportsmans performance (can't think of a better word - sorry) during a game?
Of course, yes. Clearly there's one individual about whom it will be difficult not to draw analogies between his on and off pitch performance though.Stuart said:
Of course, yes. Clearly there's one individual about whom it will be difficult not to draw analogies between his on and off pitch performance though.
Thanks, I totally respect PH's stance on this.It is a bloody ludicrous situation though, cue all sorts of "performance" jokes by the ITV commentary team on Saturday. Or not.
Oakey said:
I disagree, if they're happy to ram their lives down our throat when it benefits them then they can't really complain when something negative is reported.
That Jordan girl is a good example of someone who makes their living by being in the public eye. Live by the sword n all that.However there are plenty of rich and successful people who do not court the media, and you'll find that their private life tends to remain private. This goes for people with both public (e.g. sportsman/actor/singer) and private (e.g. corporate) jobs. There are people out there who just play sport/or act/or sing and their right to privacy is respected. The ones who court the media when it suits them are the ones getting fingers burnt.
And why? Well under normal circumstance the affair is only 'interesting' (i.e. would sell papers) because the person involved is already a well known personality. If someone who didn't court the media was in a similar position then their affair would be substantially less 'interesting' because people only like to gossip about well known people, who almost by definition are those courting the media.
I think it's when well known people start picking and choosing what they want reported that gets people's goat.
Stuart said:
Wow, go into a meeting for an hour and it goes mental.
I've asked for some advice on what the specifics are of what can and can't be said, because it is a valid point. To the best of my knowledge though, if you know that an injunction exists about a person or company, then you break it by naming them. If you wildly speculate and happen to name someone in isolation who has an injunction against them, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to bring a case. In Tonker's post above, it could conceivably be argued that all the people he names would have no cause to be mentioned in the same sentence unless it were known by him that they had injunctions in common. So he'd be knackered..
Let's be clear about this though; we at PH towers are on the same side of the argument as most people on this thread. We think it is ludicrous, we think that this has been a momentous week for media law and for free speech, and there's no doubt that the law will need to change.
However we're talking about a criminal offence here, and the law still stands. We'll be the first to rejoice when the landscape is clarified by the law lords, but until that time anyone who breaks an injunction is at risk (however small that risk might be) of criminal prosecution, and we'd be in the dock with you. For that reason, we'll exercise our right as the publisher of this site to protect ourselves against such an eventuality.
Thank you to all the people who've shown respect for this point of view. Anyone who doesn't will very quickly find their posts moderated and their access to PH limited. We have made our position on this abundantly clear.
He's not bluffing you know I've asked for some advice on what the specifics are of what can and can't be said, because it is a valid point. To the best of my knowledge though, if you know that an injunction exists about a person or company, then you break it by naming them. If you wildly speculate and happen to name someone in isolation who has an injunction against them, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to bring a case. In Tonker's post above, it could conceivably be argued that all the people he names would have no cause to be mentioned in the same sentence unless it were known by him that they had injunctions in common. So he'd be knackered..
Let's be clear about this though; we at PH towers are on the same side of the argument as most people on this thread. We think it is ludicrous, we think that this has been a momentous week for media law and for free speech, and there's no doubt that the law will need to change.
However we're talking about a criminal offence here, and the law still stands. We'll be the first to rejoice when the landscape is clarified by the law lords, but until that time anyone who breaks an injunction is at risk (however small that risk might be) of criminal prosecution, and we'd be in the dock with you. For that reason, we'll exercise our right as the publisher of this site to protect ourselves against such an eventuality.
Thank you to all the people who've shown respect for this point of view. Anyone who doesn't will very quickly find their posts moderated and their access to PH limited. We have made our position on this abundantly clear.
Stuart said:
To the best of my knowledge though, if you know that an injunction exists about a person or company, then you break it by naming them. If you wildly speculate and happen to name someone in isolation who has an injunction against them, then I would imagine that it would be difficult to bring a case.
So as I don't know who is, or is not, in possession of a super-injunction it's impossible for me to be in contempt of court and impossible for me to break these posting guidelines. If the PH mods do know who is in possession of a super-injunction they could delete my posts should I unwittingly name someone I guess? This is beyond satire .. (and that is not aimed at PH but the law in general)Eric Mc said:
Can injunctions actually work anymore?
What jurisdiction would they apply to?
Surely a media outlet (especially one with international reach) can easily circumvent these injunctions by publishing what they want to publish in a jurisdiction not covered by the injunction -as we saw this week.
Forget the ethics - the case is lost - forever.
They work as long as people play by the rules of the injunction. Any system of law relies on (a) people abiding by the rules and (b) there being sanctions, with teeth, for those who choose not to. What jurisdiction would they apply to?
Surely a media outlet (especially one with international reach) can easily circumvent these injunctions by publishing what they want to publish in a jurisdiction not covered by the injunction -as we saw this week.
Forget the ethics - the case is lost - forever.
If News International is served with an injunction restraining it from publishing a piece of information, and it decides to publish in the US, it is in breach of the injunction (assuming, as is very likely, that the injunction on its face prevents publication anywhere). News International has directors here, assets here and money here. So it can and will be done for contempt of court here, and it will suffer consequences here.
But by then the information is in the public domain, the damage has been done and the real dispute becomes academic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff