Superinjunction threads

[Stuart]

Chaps,

As much of an ass as the law quite clearly is on this issue, it is nonetheless the law. If we name anyone in possession of a super-injunction then we're in contempt of court, and PH is unfortunately just big enough to be a potential target for any legal action. Contempt of court is a criminal, not civil, offence and the penalties are more serious. The other key difference between this and anything libellous is that a poster would be equally liable and equally likely to be hauled before the courts as a media owner.

So for this reason we'd appreciate if you were to steer clear of this subject matter for now. We've had a look at how other forums are dealing with this and even the football forums are moderating against injunction breaks.

Serious stuff, and the legal landscape is changing by the minute, but please respect our view on this for now.

As soon as the situation changes, we'll change our policy - it really isn't our desire to unnecessarily stifle debate on this issue, but we must protect ourselves.

Thanks,

Stuart

[Stuart]

Fittster said:

Is PH anything but a brand of Haymarket Consumer Media? Surely it's Haymarket media who would end up in court.

Is Michael Heseltine ultimately the owner of the site?

It is, and the individual who'd ultimately end up in court is an interesting one. However I'm not particularly inclined to find out!

It is a stupid situation, but at present we believe we've no choice but to take this line. The minute it changes, we'll change our policy on this.

[Stuart]

130R said:

You have more chance of being hit by an asteroid that being hauled before the courts for posting the name of someone in possession of a super-injunction

I'm inclined to agree, but the law is still the law, and it is our decision to make on whether to abide by it or not.

[Stuart]

PaulHogan said:

Happy to respect you on this. But can you clarify if this includes the Welsh footballer and the City banker or can we regard these two as now being in the public domain?

This means anyone - individual or company - subject to a superinjunction until such time as that injunction is lifted. Thus Marr's affair is absolutely fine, welsh footballers not so.

[Stuart]

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.

[Stuart]

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]

DS3R said:

I think this would be great.

Mainly because about 80% of the posts on here would benefit from clarification between what is and is not in "the public interest" in a legal sense, and what the general perception is of "what the public is interestED in", particularly when most posters appear to assume THEY are that public, and it is what THEY are interestED in that matters.

We've had the conversation offline. I think that the best approach for all is simply not to name someone if you suspect that an injunction applies, and rely on us to moderate those that slip through.

[Stuart]

Adrian W said:

So you have seen the list

There isn't an official list. You either need to be sufficiently on the radar for those firms who've obtained the injunction to notify you of what it covers, or approach those firms and ask. That's my understanding at least.

It does put me in an impossible position of course. In trying to find out from someone such as Schillings what I'm unable to write about, I might be directing them to content they might wish to take action against.

[Stuart]

CommanderJameson said:

I'll PM you with an address to which you can post the watches.

I'm taking them with me to buy soap, tobacco and an uninterrupted shower.

[Stuart]

elster said:

Does this mean we will not be allowed to discuss the politics behind the injunctions? Or just specific cases.

The latter.

[Stuart]

Ian974 said:

I hope I'm not being thick, but is the process that has happened basically been along the lines of 'I've been doing this and that, but I don't want anyone to find out. So I'll tell my lawyer to tell all the newspapers what it is and that they can't print it.'

About that, yes.