I can't tell you what this post is about or even that it exists
May 8, 2011 5:17 PM Subscribe
posted by metaBugs (72 comments total)
8 users marked this as a favorite
In the UK, "super-injunctions" can prohibit the press from reporting a story on privacy grounds and from reporting that any such injunction has been issued. Newspapers are occasionally quite playful in getting around these increasingly unpopular
injunctions. The Telegraph famously pointed its readers
to the then-trending twitter campaign against Trafgura and, today, the Daily Mail appears to be playing a similar game
. More prosaically, The Independent has simply reported a Tory MP's comments in Parliament
that a currently sitting MP has taken out a super-injunction.
A few have been successfully challenged by the papers affected, and subsequently given high profiles by the press. Recent examples include: Andrew Marr's
injunction regarding an extramarital affair; and Trafigura's injunction
(injunction with annotations in this PDF
) regarding accusations that its toxic waste disposal scheme had led to widespread and serious illnesses on the Ivory Coast. Carter-Ruck, a law firm involved in many such cases, argues that such injunctions are necessary and that "most of the coverage, has been hysterical and hyperbolic
However, perhaps current reports of super-injunctions should be treated with caution: the result of a case brought to the ECHR by Max Mosely is exprected this week, which is expected to "in effect, introduce a celebrity privacy law [with] a chilling effect on freedom of expression
". News companies can reasonably be suppose to strongly oppose this measure, leading lawyer and free speech advocate David Allen Green
to caution that "The mainstream media desperately want to discredit an adverse Mosley judgment on injunctions. Be skeptical what they tell you this week.