You are under arrest for breaching the Hot Gossip Act
May 22, 2011 4:35 AM Subscribe
Twitter and unnamed Twitterers sued by anonymous man. These are the six tweets referred to.
Some are fighting for the right to gossip as Judges and MPs clash on gagging orders and a showdown between the law and common sense is brewing.
Its not all about sports personalities with way too much cash.
As Imogen Thomas says: Yet again my name and reputation have been trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.
List of known gagging orders. ( google spreadsheet and Previously 1; 2 ).
Some are fighting for the right to gossip as Judges and MPs clash on gagging orders and a showdown between the law and common sense is brewing.
Its not all about sports personalities with way too much cash.
As Imogen Thomas says: Yet again my name and reputation have been trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.
List of known gagging orders. ( google spreadsheet and Previously 1; 2 ).
I wonder how many gigs of data they'll have to trawl through to find the name they're looking for.
posted by joannemullen at 4:46 AM on May 22, 2011 [13 favorites]
posted by joannemullen at 4:46 AM on May 22, 2011 [13 favorites]
Didn't the story only come out because Thomas was trying to sell it? So if anyone is trashing her reputation, it's her?
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:48 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:48 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Former Big Brother contestant...claims reputation 'trashed'
yeahhhh..we can stop right there...
posted by sexymofo at 4:51 AM on May 22, 2011 [9 favorites]
yeahhhh..we can stop right there...
posted by sexymofo at 4:51 AM on May 22, 2011 [9 favorites]
I'm not surprised they have printed the picture, Joanne. They do, after all, cover left wing issues.
posted by jaduncan at 4:53 AM on May 22, 2011 [19 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 4:53 AM on May 22, 2011 [19 favorites]
Super injunctions to cover up stupid affairs is stupid and a waste. If this story had gotten out (which it inevitably would have) it would have dominated the tabloids for a few weeks max. He's retiring anyway, his wife is probably going to stay with him (they usually do) and his life would have gone on pretty normally. But now, he's going to be known as an idiot more for the superinunction than for the affair and he cant even defend himself without going against the injunction himself. Let the wrath of twitter loose on this rubbish law.
posted by like_neon at 4:55 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by like_neon at 4:55 AM on May 22, 2011
I'm not surprised they have printed the picture, Joanne. They do, after all, cover left wing issues.
Things could get very hairy for them though, with this man united with the worst aspects of our legal.
posted by Abiezer at 4:57 AM on May 22, 2011 [12 favorites]
Things could get very hairy for them though, with this man united with the worst aspects of our legal.
posted by Abiezer at 4:57 AM on May 22, 2011 [12 favorites]
..system.
posted by Abiezer at 4:57 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Abiezer at 4:57 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
As pointed out in the recent thread, there is way more at stake here than simply the morality of gossiping about celebrity's private lives.
British libel law & press injunctions are being used by chemical corporations to silence their environmental critics (see Hempel and Trafigura).
Aside from England, we need more countries to pass anti-SLAPP legislation and mimic the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:59 AM on May 22, 2011 [10 favorites]
British libel law & press injunctions are being used by chemical corporations to silence their environmental critics (see Hempel and Trafigura).
Aside from England, we need more countries to pass anti-SLAPP legislation and mimic the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:59 AM on May 22, 2011 [10 favorites]
Saggy ring - not only evidence exhibit #1 in this case, but also an anagram of the footballers name.
posted by fire&wings at 5:00 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by fire&wings at 5:00 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
(I do love that our Chief Justice is "Lord Judge")
posted by Auz at 5:00 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Auz at 5:00 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Just saw clip on Sky News, the amount of effort the presenters had to muster to keep saying "premier league footballer" and not his real name was pretty funny.
posted by like_neon at 5:06 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by like_neon at 5:06 AM on May 22, 2011
Is this something I'd have to not have a first amendment to care about?
posted by Mick at 5:17 AM on May 22, 2011 [8 favorites]
posted by Mick at 5:17 AM on May 22, 2011 [8 favorites]
There are such injunctions, and try to see how this works in a democracy, that have been taken out by a person to stop anyone discussing any reference to their criminal behaviour.
This isn't about C list celebrities, there are very grave issues at stake.
I think the IMMA is a very good idea and there needs to be something done, at least on the EU level. Too many people are getting away with too much because of restrictions on the media.
posted by quarsan at 5:20 AM on May 22, 2011
This isn't about C list celebrities, there are very grave issues at stake.
I think the IMMA is a very good idea and there needs to be something done, at least on the EU level. Too many people are getting away with too much because of restrictions on the media.
posted by quarsan at 5:20 AM on May 22, 2011
Things could get very hairy for them though, with this man united with the worst aspects of our legal system.
Except for viewers in Scotland.
(also, emphasis mine - I like what you did there)
posted by imperium at 5:38 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
Except for viewers in Scotland.
(also, emphasis mine - I like what you did there)
posted by imperium at 5:38 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
For many years, the British press acted appallingly in regards to privacy. "Super" injunctions are a product of the press's inability to function with decorum, such as in the on-going investigation into the News of the World phone hacking case.
I'm not in favour of super-injunctions, or even injunctions. But the British press has been an unredeemable bunch of stupid assholes for so long that, at some point, this law must have seemed like a good idea. Combined with the stupidity that lawmakers have about "the internet super-highway", it was always headed for the massive clusterfuck we see now.
posted by The River Ivel at 5:41 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm not in favour of super-injunctions, or even injunctions. But the British press has been an unredeemable bunch of stupid assholes for so long that, at some point, this law must have seemed like a good idea. Combined with the stupidity that lawmakers have about "the internet super-highway", it was always headed for the massive clusterfuck we see now.
posted by The River Ivel at 5:41 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yet again my name and reputation have been trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.
I don't understand. How is her name and reputation being trashed?
posted by gjc at 5:47 AM on May 22, 2011
I don't understand. How is her name and reputation being trashed?
posted by gjc at 5:47 AM on May 22, 2011
These people really aren't so dense as to not know the difference between gossiping and publishing?
posted by gjc at 5:48 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by gjc at 5:48 AM on May 22, 2011
The last link has some strange/creepy stuff. Talking of a possible rumour against a female reporter it says "try spreading it on Twitter and see how she responds." This guy (yup I assume it's a guy) think he's head of the internet inquisition?
posted by Gratishades at 5:51 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by Gratishades at 5:51 AM on May 22, 2011
All these allusions make me giggle.
posted by WalkingAround at 5:54 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by WalkingAround at 5:54 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
Except for viewers in Scotland.
Certainly it's the Welsh international aspects that seem more revealing in this case.
posted by Abiezer at 5:55 AM on May 22, 2011 [4 favorites]
Certainly it's the Welsh international aspects that seem more revealing in this case.
posted by Abiezer at 5:55 AM on May 22, 2011 [4 favorites]
The Imogen Thomas/footballer-whose-name-we-all-know case is muddied somewhat by allegations of attempted blackmail.
Auz: (I do love that our Chief Justice is "Lord Judge")
The best thing about this is that at some point he must have been Judge Judge.
posted by spectrevsrector at 6:03 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Auz: (I do love that our Chief Justice is "Lord Judge")
The best thing about this is that at some point he must have been Judge Judge.
posted by spectrevsrector at 6:03 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Trouble is that celebrity gossip stories are the only gigs that pay these days.
posted by beniamino at 6:05 AM on May 22, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by beniamino at 6:05 AM on May 22, 2011 [3 favorites]
Lord Judge also condemned "liars" who use Twitter to break injunctions, saying: "Modern technology is totally out of control. Anybody can put anything on it."
I'm honestly terrified that the highest judge in the UK and the man who has possibly the most power in shaping the future of online freedom of speech sounds exactly like my crazy 80-year old gran.
"These Twitters - you heard of them?" continued Lord Judge. "They're all coated in makeup, even the boys. Wearing their trousers down about their knees, all underwear on display."
posted by dudekiller at 6:14 AM on May 22, 2011 [13 favorites]
I'm honestly terrified that the highest judge in the UK and the man who has possibly the most power in shaping the future of online freedom of speech sounds exactly like my crazy 80-year old gran.
"These Twitters - you heard of them?" continued Lord Judge. "They're all coated in makeup, even the boys. Wearing their trousers down about their knees, all underwear on display."
posted by dudekiller at 6:14 AM on May 22, 2011 [13 favorites]
The goofy hints in here are turned up to 11.
posted by pracowity at 6:17 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by pracowity at 6:17 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Winning a superinjunction no longer guarantees super-anonymity. In fact, it delivers the opposite.
posted by Artw at 6:25 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 6:25 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Scotland? Wales?
I thought the the performer known as Imogen Thomas only did gigs in Manchester.
On a more serious note; Talk of 'slappers and footballers' should not obscure the fact that superinjunctions are a weapon mainly used by powerful men against women.
posted by adamvasco at 6:26 AM on May 22, 2011 [6 favorites]
I thought the the performer known as Imogen Thomas only did gigs in Manchester.
On a more serious note; Talk of 'slappers and footballers' should not obscure the fact that superinjunctions are a weapon mainly used by powerful men against women.
posted by adamvasco at 6:26 AM on May 22, 2011 [6 favorites]
Well, now I know about all these cases and I wouldn't if not for the superinjunction angle. I really couldn't care less about which British celebrity likes to be done with a rubber dinghy but with the superinjunction angle it becomes interesting.
I wonder how much the lawyers who filed these superinjunctions charged. Fool and his money etc.
posted by Kattullus at 6:28 AM on May 22, 2011
I wonder how much the lawyers who filed these superinjunctions charged. Fool and his money etc.
posted by Kattullus at 6:28 AM on May 22, 2011
Say what you will about Lord Judge but he did lead the raid on East-Meg One that saved Mega City from the Sovs to end the Apocalypse War back in '04. We wouldn't be having this conversation without his noble service.
posted by BeerFilter at 6:33 AM on May 22, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by BeerFilter at 6:33 AM on May 22, 2011 [10 favorites]
Imogen Thomas should have taken out a super injunction agains the judge who claimed she was trying to blackmail .
posted by Summer at 6:50 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by Summer at 6:50 AM on May 22, 2011
Barbra Streisand wept.
posted by Jehan at 6:51 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Jehan at 6:51 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Got It - George Grahams Son ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:52 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:52 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
How can super injunctions possibly be enforced in this day and age?
posted by LSK at 7:05 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by LSK at 7:05 AM on May 22, 2011
Will they sue the wikipedia?
No, they will turn of the internets. Possibly by blocking the tubes.
posted by Pendragon at 7:24 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, they will turn of the internets. Possibly by blocking the tubes.
posted by Pendragon at 7:24 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Things could get very hairy for them though, with this man united with the worst aspects of our legal system.
Indeed, I just hope he doesn't welch on any deal he makes otherwise this could go international.
posted by ob at 7:26 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Indeed, I just hope he doesn't welch on any deal he makes otherwise this could go international.
posted by ob at 7:26 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Something, something, studs-up sliding tackle on freedom of the press...no not the ginger one, the other one.
I'm terrible at this
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:32 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm terrible at this
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:32 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
And I should have read the rest of the thread. I'll go now and leave the individual concerned to play the midfield in peace.
posted by ob at 7:33 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by ob at 7:33 AM on May 22, 2011
I am very anguished about all of this; this, and the fact I only have a few Gigs of Harddrive space left.
Thomas is suing as in court the footballer claimed she tried to blackmail him over the affair, for which there appears to be very little evidence (even the judge said there was hardly any substance to the claim, yet let it stand). So although some may laugh as she was on BB, being called a Blackmailer in court without evidence, is shurely Libel.
posted by marienbad at 7:38 AM on May 22, 2011
Thomas is suing as in court the footballer claimed she tried to blackmail him over the affair, for which there appears to be very little evidence (even the judge said there was hardly any substance to the claim, yet let it stand). So although some may laugh as she was on BB, being called a Blackmailer in court without evidence, is shurely Libel.
posted by marienbad at 7:38 AM on May 22, 2011
It's interesting that you link to the Wikipedia article. The article right now has no mention of this issue, however if you review the revision history, it reports that there have been no edits removing its mention (which is to say, it shows the 'latest' revision with the section intact). Kind of fishy.
posted by indubitable at 7:41 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by indubitable at 7:41 AM on May 22, 2011
Thomas is suing as in court the footballer claimed she tried to blackmail him over the affair, for which there appears to be very little evidence (even the judge said there was hardly any substance to the claim, yet let it stand). So although some may laugh as she was on BB, being called a Blackmailer in court without evidence, is shurely Libel.
Forgive me, but this is part of the story I've not heard before. Did Ryan Giggs claim Imogen Thomas blackmailed him over their affair in order to get the injunction to prevent details being made public? Or did Giggs get the injunction to prevent claims that he libelled Thomas from being published?
posted by Jehan at 7:43 AM on May 22, 2011
Forgive me, but this is part of the story I've not heard before. Did Ryan Giggs claim Imogen Thomas blackmailed him over their affair in order to get the injunction to prevent details being made public? Or did Giggs get the injunction to prevent claims that he libelled Thomas from being published?
posted by Jehan at 7:43 AM on May 22, 2011
Actually, wait, that wouldn't be libel would it? Nevermind.
posted by Jehan at 7:43 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by Jehan at 7:43 AM on May 22, 2011
The trouble with this story is it has no protagonists. I find it impossible to sympathise with (a) celebrities who have had their privacy compromised or (b) tabloids who believe it is their right to spread pointless gossip.
And the fact that the media are trying to spin it into some grand "Privacy vs. Freedom of Information" showdown just makes it even more insufferable.
posted by Acey at 7:46 AM on May 22, 2011
And the fact that the media are trying to spin it into some grand "Privacy vs. Freedom of Information" showdown just makes it even more insufferable.
posted by Acey at 7:46 AM on May 22, 2011
The article right now has no mention of this issue
It did about ten minutes ago! There is this as well, that still mentions the totally non-anonymous footballer by name.
posted by ob at 7:48 AM on May 22, 2011
It did about ten minutes ago! There is this as well, that still mentions the totally non-anonymous footballer by name.
posted by ob at 7:48 AM on May 22, 2011
Odd, indubitable , I can see it in the history. And here's the wiki-edit, seems to be the start of an edit-war happening right now...
posted by dabitch at 7:55 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by dabitch at 7:55 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't know if this matters, but how did the Imogen Thomas/ "married footballer" issue initially come to light? Did she come forward with the story, or was it published by a third party without her cooperation?
posted by craichead at 7:57 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by craichead at 7:57 AM on May 22, 2011
Sorry. I JFGI. According to her wikipedia page, she says she didn't cooperate in the news story about the affair. So it really does seem fucked up to me that he has anonymity and she doesn't. And he can accuse her of blackmail from behind the protection of anonymity, but she's banned from responding by the gagging order? How is that fair?
posted by craichead at 8:00 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by craichead at 8:00 AM on May 22, 2011
I think it's crazy the effort to which many of us are going to in not writing "Ryan Giggs". Are UK MeFites actually worried about their own legal culpability in violating these injunctions?
posted by norm at 8:10 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by norm at 8:10 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
To be fair, nobody wants to see intimate photos of Jeremy Clarkson.
posted by jimmythefish at 8:12 AM on May 22, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by jimmythefish at 8:12 AM on May 22, 2011 [5 favorites]
I'm a US mefite, and I only vaguely know who Ryan Giggs is. But it did occur to me briefly that my comment might get deleted if I named him.
posted by craichead at 8:18 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by craichead at 8:18 AM on May 22, 2011
I heard it Was Barbra Streisand
posted by fullerine at 8:23 AM on May 22, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by fullerine at 8:23 AM on May 22, 2011 [4 favorites]
Look, I'm from America, so I'm quite used to having an utterly fucked-up system that is rightly chided by other nations.
However, the way Britain deals with freedom of speech is completely and massively problematic. This whole thing of being able to issue 'injunctions' at all is a mistake. I don't really see why people even debate this; I see people on the chat shows I download (10 O'Clock Live, etcet) saying "well on the on hand there's speech and on the other there's privacy..." as if there were any debate to be made at all – as if the sky would fall if the courts simply couldn't make injunctions any more. But it wouldn't. Life would go on.
This seems to be one point, I think, on which the US system gets it right: the right to privacy is not as important as the freedom of speech, and while both deserve protections, one has priority over the other. The fact that one can be arrested for saying or printing someone's name is appalling to me, and indicative that a free society is being violated in an essential and fundamental way.
posted by koeselitz at 8:24 AM on May 22, 2011 [6 favorites]
However, the way Britain deals with freedom of speech is completely and massively problematic. This whole thing of being able to issue 'injunctions' at all is a mistake. I don't really see why people even debate this; I see people on the chat shows I download (10 O'Clock Live, etcet) saying "well on the on hand there's speech and on the other there's privacy..." as if there were any debate to be made at all – as if the sky would fall if the courts simply couldn't make injunctions any more. But it wouldn't. Life would go on.
This seems to be one point, I think, on which the US system gets it right: the right to privacy is not as important as the freedom of speech, and while both deserve protections, one has priority over the other. The fact that one can be arrested for saying or printing someone's name is appalling to me, and indicative that a free society is being violated in an essential and fundamental way.
posted by koeselitz at 8:24 AM on May 22, 2011 [6 favorites]
Gagging free speech in this way is not a sensible way for the courts to proceed. In fact, I have some sympathy with the individuals in question once one understands how manipulative and unscrupulous British tabloids can be. Going down the years, there have been various efforts - human rights legislation, the creation of the Press Complaints Commission, and so forth although we need only look across the pond to see the future here with a rise in tittle tattle websites. Good, workable solutions need to be driven by parliament and primarily need to work in tandem with far greater penalties on news organisations that abuse their power in the name on publishing things in the public interest. Some day we may get that, although by the time we do I suspect the balance of power will have shifted definitively between the tabloids (which are losing sales at an alarming rate) and smaller scale TMZ type sites reliant on less formal information networks.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:25 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by MuffinMan at 8:25 AM on May 22, 2011
This whole thing of being able to issue 'injunctions' at all is a mistake.
Yes and no.
I actually support the idea that protection is in place for vulnerable individuals when a case isn't in the public interest. Generally, though, those people are children or vulnerable adults. One of the problems with the debate is that we don't know what or who the majority of superinjunctions are protecting.
But, yes, I don't think the privilege should be extended to promiscuous footballers. Except, perhaps, when illegitimate children are involved.
posted by dumdidumdum at 8:31 AM on May 22, 2011
Yes and no.
I actually support the idea that protection is in place for vulnerable individuals when a case isn't in the public interest. Generally, though, those people are children or vulnerable adults. One of the problems with the debate is that we don't know what or who the majority of superinjunctions are protecting.
But, yes, I don't think the privilege should be extended to promiscuous footballers. Except, perhaps, when illegitimate children are involved.
posted by dumdidumdum at 8:31 AM on May 22, 2011
I am so remembering this thread next time there is one of those "your First Amendment is really stupid" exchanges here. Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs.
posted by norm at 8:32 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by norm at 8:32 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's stunning to me, in fact, that British citizens everywhere don't rise up bodily and shout Ryan Giggs' name from the rooftops, writing it on the walls and papering public places with it. If ever there was a time for civil disobedience, this would seem to be it.
posted by koeselitz at 8:32 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by koeselitz at 8:32 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
I was thinking about that, dumdidumdum. So one of the injunctions listed on the spreadsheet has to do with the (alleged) suicide attempt of a politician's minor child. In the US, there's a pretty intense journalistic convention that says that you can't report on the private lives of politician's children. Even though there's no law, I don't think that any mainstream media outlet would report that, not even the really salacious tabloids. But all bets are off now with right-wing websites, and if it got out that Malia or Sasha Obama had tried to kill herself, I suspect it would be aaaaallll over the right-wing blogosphere. And that's fucked up.
But ultimately, I'm not sure there's any way to prevent it, given the global reach of the internet. People are going to find a way around both laws and informal conventions.
posted by craichead at 8:38 AM on May 22, 2011
But ultimately, I'm not sure there's any way to prevent it, given the global reach of the internet. People are going to find a way around both laws and informal conventions.
posted by craichead at 8:38 AM on May 22, 2011
I am so remembering this thread next time there is one of those "your First Amendment is really stupid" exchanges here.
Don't get too cocky; we still have the DMCA.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:39 AM on May 22, 2011
Don't get too cocky; we still have the DMCA.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 8:39 AM on May 22, 2011
I wonder if the political noises will come to anything - seems like a populist nonpartisan issue that would be great to push for a ruinously unpopular goverment - on the other hand politicians have been major beneficiaries in the past.
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by Artw at 8:41 AM on May 22, 2011
There are reasons for gaging parties to a criminal trial, koeselitz. You don't want prosecutors and defense attorneys holding show trials, like Assange's illegal treatment by Swedish prosecutors, outing witnesses, etc.
It's simply insane that British judges issue injunctions against people who aren't even party to an existing case though. I'd hope that'd receive the simultaneous First Amendment and Separation of Powers smack down in the U.S.
I'm personally surprised that British people don't recognize both press injunctions and their libel laws as a manifestation of their historical class system, albeit now protecting the rich & powerful instead of the nobility.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:49 AM on May 22, 2011 [7 favorites]
It's simply insane that British judges issue injunctions against people who aren't even party to an existing case though. I'd hope that'd receive the simultaneous First Amendment and Separation of Powers smack down in the U.S.
I'm personally surprised that British people don't recognize both press injunctions and their libel laws as a manifestation of their historical class system, albeit now protecting the rich & powerful instead of the nobility.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:49 AM on May 22, 2011 [7 favorites]
dumdidumdum: “Yes and no. I actually support the idea that protection is in place for vulnerable individuals when a case isn't in the public interest. Generally, though, those people are children or vulnerable adults. One of the problems with the debate is that we don't know what or who the majority of superinjunctions are protecting. But, yes, I don't think the privilege should be extended to promiscuous footballers. Except, perhaps, when illegitimate children are involved.”
No. I say this is bullshit. It gets trotted out every time people discuss this, as though there's any argument at all. You can act like this is 'saving the children!' but how many times exactly have these injunctions been used for such purposes? It's convenient for the courts that you don't know precisely. How about never? That seems most likely to me.
It is possible to have protections on privacy without the injunction system. Indeed, I don't think it's possible to have adequate protections on privacy with the injunction system, because with it freedom of speech is so hampered that there's no way to avoid a conflict between freedom and privacy.
Injunctions never do good for anybody. They simply don't. They are exclusively a tool for privilege, and there is simply no way that it has been or every will be otherwise. They need to be abolished.
posted by koeselitz at 8:50 AM on May 22, 2011
No. I say this is bullshit. It gets trotted out every time people discuss this, as though there's any argument at all. You can act like this is 'saving the children!' but how many times exactly have these injunctions been used for such purposes? It's convenient for the courts that you don't know precisely. How about never? That seems most likely to me.
It is possible to have protections on privacy without the injunction system. Indeed, I don't think it's possible to have adequate protections on privacy with the injunction system, because with it freedom of speech is so hampered that there's no way to avoid a conflict between freedom and privacy.
Injunctions never do good for anybody. They simply don't. They are exclusively a tool for privilege, and there is simply no way that it has been or every will be otherwise. They need to be abolished.
posted by koeselitz at 8:50 AM on May 22, 2011
Koezelitz, some of us do, quite often (usually followed by 'running down the wing (x2) loved by the reds, feared by the blues, Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs, Ryan Giggs".)
At least it doesn't seem to be affecting his game.
Incidentally, funny that they went to all that effort to get the injunction in England and Wales, and forgot to get one in Scotland (separate legal systems, don't you know)
posted by Infinite Jest at 8:50 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
At least it doesn't seem to be affecting his game.
Incidentally, funny that they went to all that effort to get the injunction in England and Wales, and forgot to get one in Scotland (separate legal systems, don't you know)
posted by Infinite Jest at 8:50 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
I wish the news media would better control themselves, then this issue would never have come to the fore. But when those with the ability to publicize information of wrong-doing can't tell the difference between public interest and privacy, it becomes a difficult issue. My opinion has changed toward openness and the general right to publish, as though I detest the actions of some organizations in violating the private lives of some individuals, the use of injunctions and superinjunctions raises the possibility to hide publicly relevant information. I don't much care for who Ryan Giggs is screwing, but I care that Trafigura is dumping toxic waste in Africa.
Unless and until there's a better solution - if that is even possible - then I don't see why injunctions should be considered a better default than freedom of speech.
I'm personally surprised that British people don't recognize both press injunctions and their libel laws as a manifestation of their historical class system, albeit now protecting the rich & powerful instead of the nobility.
English libel laws have been recognized for years as a very fucked up part of the legal system. There's been a growing campaign to change them, which has had some success in getting the current government to hold a review.
posted by Jehan at 9:00 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
Unless and until there's a better solution - if that is even possible - then I don't see why injunctions should be considered a better default than freedom of speech.
I'm personally surprised that British people don't recognize both press injunctions and their libel laws as a manifestation of their historical class system, albeit now protecting the rich & powerful instead of the nobility.
English libel laws have been recognized for years as a very fucked up part of the legal system. There's been a growing campaign to change them, which has had some success in getting the current government to hold a review.
posted by Jehan at 9:00 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
Finally, someone posts the guy's name - and he's no one I've ever heard of. Then again, I don't know who this Imogen person is, either... My only comment is I think it's ridiculous (a) to have an actual law that shields people from the public shame associated with their own actions and (b) to think in this day and age your name won't get out even if you DO have this ridiculous law... Based on how much gossipy attention has been focused on this, I'd say getting one of these "super injunctions" pretty much assures that you'll become a laughingstock for people who've never even heard of you before. Like me.
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 9:04 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by OneMonkeysUncle at 9:04 AM on May 22, 2011
Jehan: “English libel laws have been recognized for years as a very fucked up part of the legal system. There's been a growing campaign to change them, which has had some success in getting the current government to hold a review.”
Yeah, I've been holding out some hope since Lord Judge has been pushing to get this changed. I don't know exactly what progress he's made, but it's good to know he's working with the current government to try.
That seems like a somewhat separate issue from the question of the misuse of injunctions, but it's an important one.
posted by koeselitz at 9:09 AM on May 22, 2011
Yeah, I've been holding out some hope since Lord Judge has been pushing to get this changed. I don't know exactly what progress he's made, but it's good to know he's working with the current government to try.
That seems like a somewhat separate issue from the question of the misuse of injunctions, but it's an important one.
posted by koeselitz at 9:09 AM on May 22, 2011
Meanwhile, Twitter has just transfered one of its employees to a new London office. He'd better be getting BIG bucks, because I suspect his job description is going to turn out to be "Hostage".
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:10 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:10 AM on May 22, 2011
How about never? That seems most likely to me.According to the google-docs spreadsheet, at least once. I've redacted, because it's genuinely nobody's business:
A proper super-injunction – taken out by [politician's wife] over the suicide attempt of her [child, who was definitely a minor at the time.] The story was D-Noticed by [politician] [1]A d-notice appears to be an official request that British politicians make to the media not to cover a story for reasons of national security.
Like I said, in the US this would be banned by journalistic convention, not by the law. It's the same as how US newspapers generally don't publish the names of rape victims, even though there's no legal prohibition on doing so.
Based on how much gossipy attention has been focused on this, I'd say getting one of these "super injunctions" pretty much assures that you'll become a laughingstock for people who've never even heard of you before. Like me.This is typically known as the Streisand Effect. Is there anyone in the UK at this point who doesn't know that it's Ryan Giggs?
posted by craichead at 9:11 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
I can think of three stories that have almost completely disappeared, wiped clean, from the internet: A popular family comedian accused of giving roofies to women then fondling them, a popular thriller writer with nazi sympathies, and a science fiction writer who admitted in an interview to paying boys to provide favors.
There seemed to be pretty strong evidence that these weren't fabrications, and now they're down the memory hole.
posted by mecran01 at 9:14 AM on May 22, 2011
There seemed to be pretty strong evidence that these weren't fabrications, and now they're down the memory hole.
posted by mecran01 at 9:14 AM on May 22, 2011
and a science fiction writer who admitted in an interview to paying boys to provide favors.
If you're talking of Arthur C Clarke, then it's very much still around on the internet, even on his Wikipedia entry.
Otherwise, I don't know.
posted by Jehan at 9:19 AM on May 22, 2011
If you're talking of Arthur C Clarke, then it's very much still around on the internet, even on his Wikipedia entry.
Otherwise, I don't know.
posted by Jehan at 9:19 AM on May 22, 2011
Look, I'm from America, so I'm quite used to having an utterly fucked-up system that is rightly chided by other nations. However, the way Britain deals with freedom of speech is completely and massively problematic.
I dunno if America does any better in this regard, what with the more onerous provisions of the PATRIOT Act that prohibit people from disclosing whether they've had their records seized by the federal government (National Security Letters). It's just that we do it under the guise of "national security" rather than privacy.
posted by indubitable at 9:41 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
I dunno if America does any better in this regard, what with the more onerous provisions of the PATRIOT Act that prohibit people from disclosing whether they've had their records seized by the federal government (National Security Letters). It's just that we do it under the guise of "national security" rather than privacy.
posted by indubitable at 9:41 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Guardian article - (partially) answers some of Jehan and others questions.
posted by marienbad at 10:19 AM on May 22, 2011
posted by marienbad at 10:19 AM on May 22, 2011
A popular family comedian accused of giving roofies to women then fondling them
Police closed the investigation against Bill Cosby when they found no evidence, and I believe her civil suit was dismissed.
So if it did go down the memory hole, it may have been for good reason.
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Police closed the investigation against Bill Cosby when they found no evidence, and I believe her civil suit was dismissed.
So if it did go down the memory hole, it may have been for good reason.
posted by dw at 10:27 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
I have an overwhelming urge to grab my crotch and say "I've got your super injunction right here!". Actually I just did. It was not as satisfying as I had hoped.
posted by MikeMc at 10:38 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by MikeMc at 10:38 AM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
In the US, there's a pretty intense journalistic convention that says that you can't report on the private lives of politician's children.Or any children really. A pretty bizarre example is the Olsen Twins, who, after turning 18 were all over the tabloids, and prior to that there was basically nothing.
posted by delmoi at 11:36 AM on May 22, 2011
Another example of how news coverage and news cultural mores differ between countries: French press publishes Straus-Kahn accuser’s name and “photos”
posted by BeerFilter at 11:43 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by BeerFilter at 11:43 AM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Giggs will tweet you apart, again.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:27 PM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 12:27 PM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
It's all a conspiracy to improve the international visibility of British celebrities and make anyone outside their island read the sort of celebrity dawdle published by all but the very high end British press. ;)
posted by jeffburdges at 2:02 PM on May 22, 2011
posted by jeffburdges at 2:02 PM on May 22, 2011
I think there is a clear case for interpreting the development of the current UK laws as having been driven primarily, if not exclusively, by the interests of the rich. Cases like Trafigura show why this is a very poor way to run a judicial system.
On the other hand, in the last 20 years or so the UK tabloids have become notorious worldwide for their eagerness to publish details of the personal life of anyone even remotely famous, and indeed for their willingness to more or less make some salacious shit up if they can't find some dirt. I see this largely as a result of the Major cabinet who ran a "family values" crusade whilst freely indulging in the behaviour they pretended to abhor. The papers justifiably saw this as reason to publicise and criticise the personal behaviour of the ministers involved, but in retrospect seem to have taken it as some sort of carte blanche to publish the personal minutiae of anyone who can sell a paper.
This is no longer a question of a paper happening to come into possession of some personal details and choosing to publish. This is an active and aggressive investigation industry which is bent on unearthing personal details on anyone in the news. The prominence and spin that is given to the story then depends very much on how the subject responds. In Britain, this largely translates as how much you kiss Rupert's arse. That, to me, seems, like an even worse option than privileging the rich in general.
I would argue that there should be a right to privacy, and that newspapers should need to demonstrate a public interest in publishing such stories. If not, we may as well just require every high-profile person in the UK to submit a list of all their dalliances or, if there are none, their personal peccadilloes so that the papers can publish them as and when circulation requires. I mean, it's all fair game, innit?
posted by Jakey at 2:46 PM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, in the last 20 years or so the UK tabloids have become notorious worldwide for their eagerness to publish details of the personal life of anyone even remotely famous, and indeed for their willingness to more or less make some salacious shit up if they can't find some dirt. I see this largely as a result of the Major cabinet who ran a "family values" crusade whilst freely indulging in the behaviour they pretended to abhor. The papers justifiably saw this as reason to publicise and criticise the personal behaviour of the ministers involved, but in retrospect seem to have taken it as some sort of carte blanche to publish the personal minutiae of anyone who can sell a paper.
This is no longer a question of a paper happening to come into possession of some personal details and choosing to publish. This is an active and aggressive investigation industry which is bent on unearthing personal details on anyone in the news. The prominence and spin that is given to the story then depends very much on how the subject responds. In Britain, this largely translates as how much you kiss Rupert's arse. That, to me, seems, like an even worse option than privileging the rich in general.
I would argue that there should be a right to privacy, and that newspapers should need to demonstrate a public interest in publishing such stories. If not, we may as well just require every high-profile person in the UK to submit a list of all their dalliances or, if there are none, their personal peccadilloes so that the papers can publish them as and when circulation requires. I mean, it's all fair game, innit?
posted by Jakey at 2:46 PM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
The recent spate of super injunctions by these footballers and various celebrities are bringing Britain's silly libel laws ever further into disrepute - not least because the nature of the internet renders them useless - and will provoke a review which actually free things up, rather than clamping things down further. Not only is this saga very funny it'll actually have a positive social effect.
The use of D notices to prevent issues of national security being aired is another issue and I was always surprised the Blair's could get away with issuing one about a family matter several years ago. Just because Britain has overly strict libel laws though doesn't mean other western countries have a press more willing to expose the powerful. American newspapers all knew about Kennedy's serial affairs and didn't whisper a word while French politicians can have a whole necropolis in their cupboards without anything being mentioned.
OneMonkeysUncle, the man in question is a very well known footballer in Britain. You may never of heard of him but everyone in Britain has. Virtually no-one in Britain could name an American footballer, baseball player except Babe Ruth or basketballer apart from Michael Jordon and possibly the bald one from the Harlem Globetrotter's cartoon.
craichead makes a valuable point about how right wing blog sites would certainly print nonsense about Obama's family but left wing sites would never ever stoop to similar sorts of things, being far too high minded and intelligent and everything. There was no speculation about Bristol Palin and her child for example was there? None whatsoever.
posted by joannemullen at 3:17 PM on May 22, 2011
The use of D notices to prevent issues of national security being aired is another issue and I was always surprised the Blair's could get away with issuing one about a family matter several years ago. Just because Britain has overly strict libel laws though doesn't mean other western countries have a press more willing to expose the powerful. American newspapers all knew about Kennedy's serial affairs and didn't whisper a word while French politicians can have a whole necropolis in their cupboards without anything being mentioned.
OneMonkeysUncle, the man in question is a very well known footballer in Britain. You may never of heard of him but everyone in Britain has. Virtually no-one in Britain could name an American footballer, baseball player except Babe Ruth or basketballer apart from Michael Jordon and possibly the bald one from the Harlem Globetrotter's cartoon.
craichead makes a valuable point about how right wing blog sites would certainly print nonsense about Obama's family but left wing sites would never ever stoop to similar sorts of things, being far too high minded and intelligent and everything. There was no speculation about Bristol Palin and her child for example was there? None whatsoever.
posted by joannemullen at 3:17 PM on May 22, 2011
This seems to be one point, I think, on which the US system gets it right: the right to privacy is not as important as the freedom of speech, and while both deserve protections, one has priority over the other.
While that's certainly a valid point of view, there's the view from this side of the pond. We, and most europeans look at the American system with a vague sense of horror. The way that personal privacy is completely the bitch of the federal government and the corporations; the warrantless wiretapping, the right to be searched at will if you live within 50 miles of the border, the warrantless cloning of laptops and phones at the border, the warrantless cloning of phones at traffic stops, the drug dog stops being sufficient cause to search cars, the whole DMCA business, the callous disregard for privacy by companies such as facebook, google and apple, the way that it's entirely legal to knowingly say lies on air and get away with it, that money=speech rubbish that amounts to legalised bribery of politicians by powerful companies, that PACs can publish whatever lies about their opponents that they like, that people can call for the execution of gays, atheists, muslims or politicians completely scott-free etc etc etc.
I hope you can understand that the thought of embracing all that wholesale, just so the gutter press can say that err, Mr Riggs had an affair is not exactly a worthwhile trade off.
That the superinjuction system is a bit of a joke in the modern internet age is without question, and that it's used by wealthy celebrities to avoid prying into their sordid affairs also, such that it needs reform is something we can both agree on. That the US system with all its horrors is something we should unquestioningly emulate? Not so much.
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:47 PM on May 22, 2011 [7 favorites]
While that's certainly a valid point of view, there's the view from this side of the pond. We, and most europeans look at the American system with a vague sense of horror. The way that personal privacy is completely the bitch of the federal government and the corporations; the warrantless wiretapping, the right to be searched at will if you live within 50 miles of the border, the warrantless cloning of laptops and phones at the border, the warrantless cloning of phones at traffic stops, the drug dog stops being sufficient cause to search cars, the whole DMCA business, the callous disregard for privacy by companies such as facebook, google and apple, the way that it's entirely legal to knowingly say lies on air and get away with it, that money=speech rubbish that amounts to legalised bribery of politicians by powerful companies, that PACs can publish whatever lies about their opponents that they like, that people can call for the execution of gays, atheists, muslims or politicians completely scott-free etc etc etc.
I hope you can understand that the thought of embracing all that wholesale, just so the gutter press can say that err, Mr Riggs had an affair is not exactly a worthwhile trade off.
That the superinjuction system is a bit of a joke in the modern internet age is without question, and that it's used by wealthy celebrities to avoid prying into their sordid affairs also, such that it needs reform is something we can both agree on. That the US system with all its horrors is something we should unquestioningly emulate? Not so much.
posted by ArkhanJG at 3:47 PM on May 22, 2011 [7 favorites]
I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, I largely agree with Peter Preston: it's irrational for courts to restrict the media from reporting what everyone knows, and trying to forbid gossip on the global social networks of the internet by legal fiat takes the judiciary into King Canute territory.
I used to work at the Guardian when Preston was editor, and had the honor of seeing him at work up close; a genuine crusader for press freedom and public integrity who walked it like he talked it within the newspaper office as well as one the editorial page, and never objected to being questioned or challenged, even by a junior office assistant as I was. The Guardian is owned by a trust created for that purpose, which invests its assets elsewhere and uses the proceeds to finance the newspaper, allowing it to run at a loss, remain independent of advertisers' demands, and immune from takeover. The paper is really committed to high-quality investigative journalism and being muzzled by a legal injunction was one of the few things that could provoke real anger in Preston.
On the other hand, Lord Judge (yes, that is his real name) has good points to make too, and Preston's criticism of him isn't entirely fair. Lord Judge's views on the intersection of law, the press and technology are considerably more nuanced than one might imagine from the ongoing coverage. They're easily accessible on the judiciary's website (although it seems to be having traffic problems today). Ironically enough, the UK press is generally not in the habit of linking readers with original source material that might allow them to make up their own minds, or even indicating to readers where that information is to be found; so coverage of judicial issues is often more selective or slanted than readers may imagine. Contrast reports from the Grauniad, Torygraph, and Daily Fail on how Lord Judge views the impact of the Internet on jury trials, for example, with his actual remarks (10 page pdf, but in English rather than legalese).
Also relevant: two recent speeches on press freedom from Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger, and the publication last Friday of the judiciary commission's report on superinjunctions (press release, press conference transcript, and the report itself).
It's a real problem when private interests can use the courts to stifle criticism or even discussion as in the Trafigura case. On the other hand, the self-righteous indignation of the press over its inability to name an adulterous football star is a good indicator of where the media's real interests lie most of the time - marketing titillating gossip for profit. This is an ancient behavior that can't easily be legislated away, but that doesn't mean it's a good or a healthy one. The US press has very strong legal protections in the form of the first amendment, but it's not obvious that this has led to better media from a consumer point of view. Indeed, it can lead to various injustices as well in my view - the almost ubiquitous publication/broadcast of mugshots and 'perp walks' substantially increase the cost and difficulty of providing a fair trial. Gossip, particularly in relation to legal matters, is a very profitable industry, but sometimes has deadly consequences. Gossip panders to public curiosity, but that's quite a different thing from serving the public interest. There's a difference between being interested in something, and having a legitimate interest in knowing about it.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:50 PM on May 22, 2011 [6 favorites]
I used to work at the Guardian when Preston was editor, and had the honor of seeing him at work up close; a genuine crusader for press freedom and public integrity who walked it like he talked it within the newspaper office as well as one the editorial page, and never objected to being questioned or challenged, even by a junior office assistant as I was. The Guardian is owned by a trust created for that purpose, which invests its assets elsewhere and uses the proceeds to finance the newspaper, allowing it to run at a loss, remain independent of advertisers' demands, and immune from takeover. The paper is really committed to high-quality investigative journalism and being muzzled by a legal injunction was one of the few things that could provoke real anger in Preston.
On the other hand, Lord Judge (yes, that is his real name) has good points to make too, and Preston's criticism of him isn't entirely fair. Lord Judge's views on the intersection of law, the press and technology are considerably more nuanced than one might imagine from the ongoing coverage. They're easily accessible on the judiciary's website (although it seems to be having traffic problems today). Ironically enough, the UK press is generally not in the habit of linking readers with original source material that might allow them to make up their own minds, or even indicating to readers where that information is to be found; so coverage of judicial issues is often more selective or slanted than readers may imagine. Contrast reports from the Grauniad, Torygraph, and Daily Fail on how Lord Judge views the impact of the Internet on jury trials, for example, with his actual remarks (10 page pdf, but in English rather than legalese).
Also relevant: two recent speeches on press freedom from Lord Judge and Lord Neuberger, and the publication last Friday of the judiciary commission's report on superinjunctions (press release, press conference transcript, and the report itself).
It's a real problem when private interests can use the courts to stifle criticism or even discussion as in the Trafigura case. On the other hand, the self-righteous indignation of the press over its inability to name an adulterous football star is a good indicator of where the media's real interests lie most of the time - marketing titillating gossip for profit. This is an ancient behavior that can't easily be legislated away, but that doesn't mean it's a good or a healthy one. The US press has very strong legal protections in the form of the first amendment, but it's not obvious that this has led to better media from a consumer point of view. Indeed, it can lead to various injustices as well in my view - the almost ubiquitous publication/broadcast of mugshots and 'perp walks' substantially increase the cost and difficulty of providing a fair trial. Gossip, particularly in relation to legal matters, is a very profitable industry, but sometimes has deadly consequences. Gossip panders to public curiosity, but that's quite a different thing from serving the public interest. There's a difference between being interested in something, and having a legitimate interest in knowing about it.
posted by anigbrowl at 3:50 PM on May 22, 2011 [6 favorites]
Front page of tomorrow's Independent, "This law is a farce"
posted by fortythieves at 3:57 PM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by fortythieves at 3:57 PM on May 22, 2011 [2 favorites]
My new band is called "Imogen Thomas Super Injunction". Our first album is called "Gigging with Giggs", which will probably involve Paul Scholes and a bunch of frogs.
posted by kendrak at 7:13 PM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by kendrak at 7:13 PM on May 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
Are UK MeFites actually worried about their own legal culpability in violating these injunctions?
No, speaking hypotetically we might already know perfectly well, making the allusions a droll and amusing mutual game.
posted by jaduncan at 12:45 AM on May 23, 2011
No, speaking hypotetically we might already know perfectly well, making the allusions a droll and amusing mutual game.
posted by jaduncan at 12:45 AM on May 23, 2011
It would be nice if all the superinjunction test cases were about important public matters like Trafigura, rather than celebrity scandals. But you go to war against the censorship you have, not the censorship you want.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:39 AM on May 23, 2011
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:39 AM on May 23, 2011
I'm just surprised that this story deals with a Liberal Democrat who is doing something other than betraying his core beliefs...
posted by markkraft at 5:04 AM on May 23, 2011
posted by markkraft at 5:04 AM on May 23, 2011
John Hemming just mentioned Ryan Giggs in parliament, so I guess that's the injunction broken.
posted by Jehan at 8:19 AM on May 23, 2011
posted by Jehan at 8:19 AM on May 23, 2011
The use of D notices to prevent issues of national security being aired is another issue and I was always surprised the Blair's could get away with issuing one about a family matter several years ago.
Actually, I think that was the best use one could have imagined for D notices. I doubt that there is anyone who seriously regrets that that story was not covered by the national press.
posted by Acheman at 9:02 AM on May 23, 2011
Actually, I think that was the best use one could have imagined for D notices. I doubt that there is anyone who seriously regrets that that story was not covered by the national press.
posted by Acheman at 9:02 AM on May 23, 2011
The BBC and the Guardian are also reporting it's Giggs. Well, there goes my band!
posted by kendrak at 9:30 AM on May 23, 2011
posted by kendrak at 9:30 AM on May 23, 2011
With Ryan Giggs exposed, there seems to be renewed interest in the ZAM / Niger financier superinjunction where they tried to suppress the Guernsey Trust Victims blog.
This latest move, orchestrated by the solicitors Farrer & Co, raises the bizarre legal possibilities of a woman who cannot be named being jailed at the request of her equally anonymous brother-in-law, and of the entire trial for alleged contempt of court taking place in secret.posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:41 AM on May 24, 2011
There is also this little kerfuffle where Louis Bacon a US billionaire wins a high court order in London over Wikipedia 'defamation'. Myself, I just think the whole thing is a get rich quick scam for these leaches
posted by adamvasco at 6:51 AM on May 24, 2011
posted by adamvasco at 6:51 AM on May 24, 2011
The whole ZAM injuction is here and on Scribd so like Giggs it isn't very secret either.
posted by adamvasco at 7:21 AM on May 24, 2011
posted by adamvasco at 7:21 AM on May 24, 2011
Twitter unmasks anonymous British user in landmark legal battle.
California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England.
posted by adamvasco at 7:06 AM on May 29, 2011
California court forces site to reveal personal details of user accused of libelling local authority in north-east England.
posted by adamvasco at 7:06 AM on May 29, 2011
« Older You've Worked Hard! Yay! | Dimming soon to a theater near you. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fire&wings at 4:41 AM on May 22, 2011 [4 favorites]