Not For Publication (2016) – 210x291mm, Mixed Materials on Card
April 14, 2016 10:06 AM Subscribe
A few weeks ago, Popbitch published a guide to spotting clues to celebrity superinjunctions. Unfortunately, a law firm, believing that this guide affected the superinjunction case currently in the media, decided to send them a stern legal letter - which they have reproduced on their site in line with current copyright restrictions.
PS - English law prevents anyone in England naming the couple at the centre of the superinjunction currently in the news (not that who they actually are is all that relevant to this post), even though US and even Scottish publications have named them. Google are currently removing links to comply with the law.
PS - English law prevents anyone in England naming the couple at the centre of the superinjunction currently in the news (not that who they actually are is all that relevant to this post), even though US and even Scottish publications have named them. Google are currently removing links to comply with the law.
Ok, so I had to Google to find out who all this is about, but now that I've seen the alleged story it's such a massive case of "nobody's business but theirs" I don't know why "the press" feels entitled to report it at all.
posted by dnash at 10:20 AM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by dnash at 10:20 AM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have no idea what any of this means, and trying to read any of those links feels like reading some moon language, but the "in line with copyright restrictions" link is hilarious without any context needed. Brilliant and laudable!
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 10:21 AM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 10:21 AM on April 14, 2016 [4 favorites]
I did find out who the people were involved, and I would have had no interest whatsoever in celeb private lives were it not part of this legal dispute. I'm sure the press would have reported on it anyway, but the legal action makes it a much much bigger story.
posted by mippy at 10:24 AM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by mippy at 10:24 AM on April 14, 2016 [5 favorites]
Ha, just noticed the Spycatcher reference in the 'artwork'.
posted by mippy at 10:25 AM on April 14, 2016
posted by mippy at 10:25 AM on April 14, 2016
This is great, but Arkell v. Pressdram is still the best response to a lawyer's letter.
posted by chavenet at 10:35 AM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 10:35 AM on April 14, 2016 [10 favorites]
This is great, but Arkell v. Pressdram is still the best response to a lawyer's letter.
I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:45 AM on April 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
I feel that you should be aware that some asshole is signing your name to stupid letters.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:45 AM on April 14, 2016 [11 favorites]
Second prize for responses goes to the Cleveland Browns.
(argh! beaten)
posted by delfin at 10:45 AM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
(argh! beaten)
posted by delfin at 10:45 AM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's Elton John and his husband and another friend. Being afraid of some weird-ass British "internet mention injunction" (or even deleting 'injunction-violating comments') makes about as much sense as being afraid to say 'Voldemort'
When it comes to the rich attempting to use their money to separate you from your rights, tolerate no nonsense. And keep your guillotine sharp.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:48 AM on April 14, 2016 [22 favorites]
When it comes to the rich attempting to use their money to separate you from your rights, tolerate no nonsense. And keep your guillotine sharp.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:48 AM on April 14, 2016 [22 favorites]
The Cleveland Browns letter is in my opinion the greatest price of legal writing. I have it filed under "Letter, shutting someone the fuck down"
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 10:53 AM on April 14, 2016
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 10:53 AM on April 14, 2016
I found myself intensely curious about the details of the case until I got to the part about the people in question being in "an open relationship".
I mean, people cheating on their spouses isn't really my business but with celebrities, it's tough not to be curious. But if no one has done anything wrong in the eyes of the people involved than it's REALLY not my business and I also find that I just don't care.
It wasn't news until the injunction was filed.
posted by VTX at 11:03 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, people cheating on their spouses isn't really my business but with celebrities, it's tough not to be curious. But if no one has done anything wrong in the eyes of the people involved than it's REALLY not my business and I also find that I just don't care.
It wasn't news until the injunction was filed.
posted by VTX at 11:03 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm attempting to use the guide, but the best I can find is an article in the Telegraph (UK edition, yes I did wash my hands after reading it) about Elton John being in a legal fight with his former bodyguard with a picture of him and his ex-husband at the bottom. And honestly, even using the guide, I would have had no idea without a quick Google search.
I think, perhaps, a better guide would be to simply hit up a bunch of the American gossip tabloids online. Although that would take some fun out of the hunt.
posted by Hactar at 11:06 AM on April 14, 2016
I think, perhaps, a better guide would be to simply hit up a bunch of the American gossip tabloids online. Although that would take some fun out of the hunt.
posted by Hactar at 11:06 AM on April 14, 2016
Wait, wait who's the cad who cheated on his wife with his TV show co-star, then had her sacked once the wife found out? Cad.
PJS, oh, yeah, I've known about that for weeks now, and only learnt about it in cycling through the various news sites online. Aside from not wanting thier small children to know about activities that they're not young enough to understand, who cares? Aren't most celebrities in open relationships? I mean, dang, you'd kind of have to be, in their shoes. That'd be one strong-hearted and devoted famous spouse to not ever have a fling with some other pretty person, what with all the literally thousands of offers that famous beautiful people must constantly get. If they can remain physically faithful and devoted, then bless, I say.
posted by droplet at 11:15 AM on April 14, 2016
PJS, oh, yeah, I've known about that for weeks now, and only learnt about it in cycling through the various news sites online. Aside from not wanting thier small children to know about activities that they're not young enough to understand, who cares? Aren't most celebrities in open relationships? I mean, dang, you'd kind of have to be, in their shoes. That'd be one strong-hearted and devoted famous spouse to not ever have a fling with some other pretty person, what with all the literally thousands of offers that famous beautiful people must constantly get. If they can remain physically faithful and devoted, then bless, I say.
posted by droplet at 11:15 AM on April 14, 2016
It wasn't news until the injunction was filed.
Exactly. Headline: "Rich assholes think they have more rights than you. Courts back them up."
Srsly, this all happened at the White Party in Palm Springs? (According to the Enquirer) You might as well have been fucking on the sidewalk, Mary. Get over yourself.
posted by sexyrobot at 11:18 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Exactly. Headline: "Rich assholes think they have more rights than you. Courts back them up."
Srsly, this all happened at the White Party in Palm Springs? (According to the Enquirer) You might as well have been fucking on the sidewalk, Mary. Get over yourself.
posted by sexyrobot at 11:18 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
that they're not young enough to understand
And by young I meant old, of course. That post-lunch torpor has gotten to me today.
posted by droplet at 11:22 AM on April 14, 2016
And by young I meant old, of course. That post-lunch torpor has gotten to me today.
posted by droplet at 11:22 AM on April 14, 2016
There's a lot of competition for 'best response to groundless legal threats'. One of my favourites is a response to Monster Cable from the owner of Blue Jeans cable, a former lawyer.
posted by James Scott-Brown at 12:09 PM on April 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by James Scott-Brown at 12:09 PM on April 14, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's simple. Just say ton-Elay ohn-Jay and you get around the injunction.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 12:25 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's silly and wasteful to discuss celebrities' sex lives, so I'll just observe that super-injunctions do help corporations poison people, destroy the environment, etc.
I'm happy that Elton John is enjoying his life because I certainly enjoyed his music. Although my opinion of him just fell through the floor if he himself actually requested a super-injunctions. That's fucking sleezy dude.
I'm very unhappy that a corporation can ask a court to forbid a whistleblower from even talking to regulators, parliament, press, the public, etc. And even forbid those people from talking amongst themselves. And that said corporation may continue poisoning people during the process.
Super-injunctions need to end. And English libel law needs to be nerfed across the board.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm happy that Elton John is enjoying his life because I certainly enjoyed his music. Although my opinion of him just fell through the floor if he himself actually requested a super-injunctions. That's fucking sleezy dude.
I'm very unhappy that a corporation can ask a court to forbid a whistleblower from even talking to regulators, parliament, press, the public, etc. And even forbid those people from talking amongst themselves. And that said corporation may continue poisoning people during the process.
Super-injunctions need to end. And English libel law needs to be nerfed across the board.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:29 PM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd go with identifying him as Captain Fantastic (for those of us who remember his golden age in the '70s). But a British MeFite in Chat has noted that anyone close enough to the Scottish border (where the Superinjunction is not effective) knows about it... and most of them are getting tired of it.
Of course, after the "Future Newspaper" with a story about President Trump writing a Federal Libel Law, this sounds like a much more effective way of getting the same effect.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:32 PM on April 14, 2016
Of course, after the "Future Newspaper" with a story about President Trump writing a Federal Libel Law, this sounds like a much more effective way of getting the same effect.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:32 PM on April 14, 2016
I'm in Scotland, and I didn't have a clue - maybe not close enough to the border? I guess there's no real motivation for MPs to repeal secrecy laws for public figures, so this kind of farce stays on the books. One wonders whether the judge signed the injunction with a straight face — "Here you are, now nobody will ever speak of it again."
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 2:04 PM on April 14, 2016
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 2:04 PM on April 14, 2016
I'm sure it makes me a horrible person (though not even remotely as horrible as british media), but I couldn't help giggling a bit over the "we cannot tell you what this is about, but here's a picture of a bottle of olive oil (NOTE: NOT VIRGIN)" angle that some newspapers have been using.
That's fucking sleezy dude.
In addition to his lawyers harassing people all over the place, also outside England, there's also that other case John is involved in right now, about sexual assault and harassment of an employee. Who knows, maybe he's just a shitty guy.
posted by effbot at 3:42 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's fucking sleezy dude.
In addition to his lawyers harassing people all over the place, also outside England, there's also that other case John is involved in right now, about sexual assault and harassment of an employee. Who knows, maybe he's just a shitty guy.
posted by effbot at 3:42 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Scottish papers can (and one has) publish details in print but not online.
What makes this particularly interesting is that another story, that the British minister responsible for media regulation used to have a BDSM sex worker girlfriend, was known about by four papers who didn't publish it ''because it was a private matter'. The strong suspicion is that the real reason was to keep him in line, and indeed he has been walking back agreed tougher press regulation proposed as a result of massive criminality by many papers, and adopting a very aggressive anti-BBC (no, not that sort of BBC) stance much in line with Murdoch's thinking.
posted by Devonian at 3:42 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
What makes this particularly interesting is that another story, that the British minister responsible for media regulation used to have a BDSM sex worker girlfriend, was known about by four papers who didn't publish it ''because it was a private matter'. The strong suspicion is that the real reason was to keep him in line, and indeed he has been walking back agreed tougher press regulation proposed as a result of massive criminality by many papers, and adopting a very aggressive anti-BBC (no, not that sort of BBC) stance much in line with Murdoch's thinking.
posted by Devonian at 3:42 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
Although injunctions are usually taken out against one publisher in particular, the injunction itself covers everyone. This is to prevent other newspapers or organisations from finding the story independently and publishing it themselves.
How the hell does this work? Is there a secret mailing list one can subscribe to that lists the verboten stories? If so doesn't that it self constitute publishing the story?
droplet: " Aren't most celebrities in open relationships? I mean, dang, you'd kind of have to be, in their shoes. That'd be one strong-hearted and devoted famous spouse to not ever have a fling with some other pretty person, what with all the literally thousands of offers that famous beautiful people must constantly get. If they can remain physically faithful and devoted, then bless, I say."
I think it's pretty offensive to say that the only reason most people are faithful is lack of offers.
posted by Mitheral at 4:27 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
How the hell does this work? Is there a secret mailing list one can subscribe to that lists the verboten stories? If so doesn't that it self constitute publishing the story?
droplet: " Aren't most celebrities in open relationships? I mean, dang, you'd kind of have to be, in their shoes. That'd be one strong-hearted and devoted famous spouse to not ever have a fling with some other pretty person, what with all the literally thousands of offers that famous beautiful people must constantly get. If they can remain physically faithful and devoted, then bless, I say."
I think it's pretty offensive to say that the only reason most people are faithful is lack of offers.
posted by Mitheral at 4:27 PM on April 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I still want to know which female co-star was fired to appease the wife of her lover. I don't even know why.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:22 PM on April 14, 2016
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 5:22 PM on April 14, 2016
I don't think we should name the individuals here. Consenting adults did something in private that is none of our fucking business.
posted by humanfont at 5:54 PM on April 14, 2016
posted by humanfont at 5:54 PM on April 14, 2016
droplet: "Wait, wait who's the cad who cheated on his wife with his TV show co-star, then had her sacked once the wife found out? Cad."
Some research suggests that this refers to David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn of the (original) UK version of Shameless.
I'm allowed to say this because I do not live in the UK and am not bound by their dumb laws, though I suppose this comment and certain comments above mean that this particular page could get de-listed from UK Google if someone complains. I wonder if UK internet users are able to see the Wikipedia page I linked to. The modern world is strange.
posted by savetheclocktower at 7:26 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Some research suggests that this refers to David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn of the (original) UK version of Shameless.
I'm allowed to say this because I do not live in the UK and am not bound by their dumb laws, though I suppose this comment and certain comments above mean that this particular page could get de-listed from UK Google if someone complains. I wonder if UK internet users are able to see the Wikipedia page I linked to. The modern world is strange.
posted by savetheclocktower at 7:26 PM on April 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Consenting adults did something in private that is none of our fucking business.
What Elton John and David Furnish do in private is indeed none of our business. When they go to court and obtain an order muzzling the press, that is very much our business.
posted by Zonker at 3:51 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
What Elton John and David Furnish do in private is indeed none of our business. When they go to court and obtain an order muzzling the press, that is very much our business.
posted by Zonker at 3:51 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wonder if UK internet users are able to see the Wikipedia page I linked to.
That third para in the Wiki article is clear as day to this UK intarwebz user.
posted by longbaugh at 4:00 AM on April 15, 2016
That third para in the Wiki article is clear as day to this UK intarwebz user.
posted by longbaugh at 4:00 AM on April 15, 2016
the British minister responsible for media regulation used to have a BDSM sex worker girlfriend, was known about by four papers who didn't publish it ''because it was a private matter'.
As it should be. This isn't like the Tory sleaze of the 90s, where it was ministers with somewhat tawdry private lives attempting to pass moralizing legislation and demonising non-traditional families. If it doesn't affect his day to day duties, the services aren't paid for with public funds, and it's not something which could be used as blackmail to influence policy, then it's none of our business.
posted by mippy at 8:47 AM on April 15, 2016
As it should be. This isn't like the Tory sleaze of the 90s, where it was ministers with somewhat tawdry private lives attempting to pass moralizing legislation and demonising non-traditional families. If it doesn't affect his day to day duties, the services aren't paid for with public funds, and it's not something which could be used as blackmail to influence policy, then it's none of our business.
posted by mippy at 8:47 AM on April 15, 2016
Hey! Here's my unasked for two pence! You're welcome!
mippy and others saying that there are things should be private matters are, of course, right.
But I think those who are aghast at Britain's superinjunction laws are also right, indeed are more right. Maybe this is the American in me talking, but such a legal concept is nearly infinitely abuseable, and readily invites abuse. No one should be forbidden from sharing some information that they have, no matter what it is, even if it is personally embarrassing to others for any reason. That this plays into the hands of Britain's infamous tabloids is regrettable, but probably unavoidable under a proper legal scheme.
posted by JHarris at 10:36 AM on April 15, 2016
mippy and others saying that there are things should be private matters are, of course, right.
But I think those who are aghast at Britain's superinjunction laws are also right, indeed are more right. Maybe this is the American in me talking, but such a legal concept is nearly infinitely abuseable, and readily invites abuse. No one should be forbidden from sharing some information that they have, no matter what it is, even if it is personally embarrassing to others for any reason. That this plays into the hands of Britain's infamous tabloids is regrettable, but probably unavoidable under a proper legal scheme.
posted by JHarris at 10:36 AM on April 15, 2016
No one should be forbidden from sharing some information that they have, no matter what it is,
State secrets?
Personal lives of private people, as long as nobody's being harmed, don't belong in newspapers.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:58 AM on April 15, 2016
State secrets?
Personal lives of private people, as long as nobody's being harmed, don't belong in newspapers.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:58 AM on April 15, 2016
No one should be forbidden from sharing some information that they have, no matter what it is
I think lots of victims of "doxxing" would loudly disagree.
posted by ymgve at 12:00 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think lots of victims of "doxxing" would loudly disagree.
posted by ymgve at 12:00 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Personal lives of private people, as long as nobody's being harmed, don't belong in newspapers.
The media got this story via an affidavit from one of the persons involved. If one party thinks his personal life does belong in a newspaper or otherwise in public, who wins? The rich one? (cf McKennitt v Ash where a British court decided that Ash had to cut parts from her biography because she'd spent too much of her life as McKennitt's assistant).
Also, some early reports made it sound like the affidavit was part of a court case (but I haven't seen any more references to that), and arguing that newspapers cannot report on court cases is a slope that's a lot slipperier than even a bunch of dudes sloshed in olive oil...
posted by effbot at 12:42 PM on April 15, 2016
The media got this story via an affidavit from one of the persons involved. If one party thinks his personal life does belong in a newspaper or otherwise in public, who wins? The rich one? (cf McKennitt v Ash where a British court decided that Ash had to cut parts from her biography because she'd spent too much of her life as McKennitt's assistant).
Also, some early reports made it sound like the affidavit was part of a court case (but I haven't seen any more references to that), and arguing that newspapers cannot report on court cases is a slope that's a lot slipperier than even a bunch of dudes sloshed in olive oil...
posted by effbot at 12:42 PM on April 15, 2016
No one should be forbidden from sharing some information that they have, no matter what it is,
No. No. NO.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:32 PM on April 15, 2016
No. No. NO.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:32 PM on April 15, 2016
« Older "Clark's Place" | You can’t know you’re missing something if you... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by longbaugh at 10:17 AM on April 14, 2016 [2 favorites]