This weekend, a front-page photo in Scotland's Sunday Herald newspaper identified the player alleged to have had an affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas, breaking a super-injunction that aims to prevent the case being mentioned in any way. The newspaper argued that the super-injunction doesn't apply north of the border, and that it's ridiculous not to report something that's common knowledge to anyone who can access the Web -- and has been widely reported outside the UK.
The name of the footballer has been repeated more than thousands of times on Twitter, and details about the whole business are even on Wikipedia. David Cameron told ITV's Daybreak this morning that even he knows who the footballer is, and that the law around super-injunctions is "unsustainable". Cameron said that parliament would take a long, hard look at the law.
The Premier League footballer, identified in legal proceedings as 'CTB', kicked off legal action against former Welsh model Imogen Thomas, to prevent her spilling any beans about their alleged affair to the press. Twitter and unknown Twitter users are also being called to account by the naughty boy in question for revealing the existence of his super-injunction.
If I'd been knobbing Imogen Thomas I'd have been shouting it from the rooftops A super c ntjunction? Rob Exile Ward 24 May In reply to Richard Baynes: Absolutely. Postmanpat 24 May Morgan Woods 24 May In reply to Richard Baynes: I would guess that nearly all of those tweeting have absolutely no idea either whether the allegations are "true" or that the name of the player was "true".
Whilst being able to speak the truth sounds like a fine principle it would also be true to say that X was a victim of rape, or that Y's parents were in prison for murder. Given that the threshold to your article 8 right to privacy now appears to be what a vociferous but tiny minority of UK Twitter users have arbitrarily decided without knowing any of the facts of the case I still can't see how this is a victory for free speech. In reply to Morgan Woods: Didn't the Daily Mash drop a slightly cryptic reference that outed Giggs best part of three weeks ago in an article about an actor fooling around?
Bjartur i Sumarhus 24 May In reply to off-duty: Super injunctions are now known as "Gigging Orders". Pursued by a bear 24 May The most pertinent comment on th whole affair is contained in one of their pieces; "I'll have forgotten all about it by tomorrow".
I quite liked the caption to the picture in their piece on the recent biblical apocalypse that has caused so much inconvenience too. In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Err Not that the orgy happened. I believe he admitted to liking a bit of s and m with prostitutes. The nazi idea was probably insisted on by NoW execs to give their story a public interest defence, ie he's got a nasty nazi side like his old man. Ended up getting them into trouble.
Anyway it willbe interesting of the allegations about Giggs prove to be untrue In reply to off-duty: 'Whilst being able to speak the truth sounds like a fine principle ' - A right to privacy sounds a fine principle too, it doesn't mean that in practice it's enforceable or even desirable. You forego some rights to privacy simply by living in society, as you become richer, more powerful and more high profile one of the prices that you will pay is that people will be more interested in you.
In reply to Postmanpat: Giles Coren is the TV personality - off the back of his foodie programs with Sue what's-her-name. He tweeted after an evening over-imbibing at Michael winner's place. Professor Bunsen 24 May In reply to Rob Exile Ward and winhill: Am I the only person that is a little bit concerned that the Article 8 whether it be a right to respect privacy or a right to privacy itself is now to be judged by a bunch of internet users who appear to consider that without knowing any of the facts feel that it is their anonymous right to determine who should be afforded the protection of article 8, and what they should be allowed to be protected from.
Clearly any misguided belief that courts in possession of the facts might be allowed to make such finely balanced judgements was naive. To be honest a cursory glance through UKC makes it obvious that the citizens of the internet ate always right about everything. In reply to fxceltic: I'd be well chuffed if I bagged Imogen Thomas! Good effort Giggsy! In reply to elsewhere: Totally agree that it doesn't make breaches of privacy right.
I suggest that where the injunction is in respect of an article 8 right, there nay be some wider European remedy available for the breach, though it appears the AG isn't considering action in Scotland. As I argued on a previous thread - given that Twitter amongst others, is based in the Usa and operates under us law are we happy that our rights to privacy are now effectively in the hands of american legislation?
In reply to elsewhere: Isn't it great that everyone us so keen to have their privacy and rights to free speech regulated by America. Any other rights we should hand over as well? In reply to fxceltic: and quite a cool parody: youtube. In reply to off-duty: How would you propose preventing somebody in the US publishing information that was subject to an injuction in the UK? Haighy 24 May He objected to the publication on the grounds that it was a defence of his privacy.
It was also found that the women were not prostitutes and that he did not at least in the event in question have sex with them. That's not what you said earlier.
You seemed then to think that English law should have no law of privacy. Whether injunctions should prohibit their own reporting is another matter. Actually they very rarely do - certainly not in the Giggs case. They prohibited naming the claimant, which is obviously correct, once you accept that they're entitled to their privacy. And your children. They're not, are they? People within the jurisdiction who post on Twitter can find themselves getting pursued. That's the whole point of Hemming's frothing at the mouth.
It's strange that absolutely no-one has yet said anything intelligent or interesting about this affair, not here, not Lords Neuberger and Judge, not anywhere. Personally I don't see any alternative but for a salutary prison sentence or two, but given as I say that the Sun's proposed publication is in fact illegal , what do people actually think should be done? I get the impression that the noble Lords are at something of a loss, and Cameron and Co obviously have no idea at all.
It's absolutely bizarre that we have minor MPs working themselves up into a frenzy about defending democracy and freedom of speech and so forth and begging to go to prison, all in reality to defend the continuation of kiss-and-tells and blackmail by harlots and gutter journalists.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I pretty much agree with you. My point about America is that in order to prosecute a Twitter user, even one as well known as the one that can't be named, the cps will want a load of info from twitter which they are likely to need to jump through hoops of american legislation to get. Given that the majority of these social media sites are based in the US then any efforts to silence them will have to go through US courts. Obviously should a UK citizen decide to use his newly won freedom of speech to post something from the UK that is against american law it can be "censored" by us courts and he can be prosecuted.
What can be done? Perhaps streamlining the procedure to get info from American sites? I agree that a couple of salutary two year sentences might clarify the minds if those who think they have some vague right to anonymous free speech with no responsibility to stand up for their words. Rob Exile Ward 25 May In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'It's strange that absolutely no-one has yet said anything intelligent or interesting about this affair,' that's just a synonym for 'nothing I agree with.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: 'And your children. There's precedents to show that that is the case. KevinD 25 May In reply to off-duty: Listen to yourselves - both you and JCM believe that the law can solve any issue. Well, it can't. We couldn't even get the Yanks to stop funding the IRA.
Our 'prurient' interest in the rich and famous may well tap into some of our deepest and most instinctive human characteristics - do you think cavemen weren't gossipping about their leaders behind their backs? Do you think a crowd has EVER walked past an accident without gawping?
Do you think you can enforceably legislate against that? There's an easy answer if you want privacy. Be low profile. Do nothing that you wouldn't want your kids hearing about. Either will do. Banned User 77 25 May In reply to MG: But it does, 80 stand, only one has been breached. I find it straneg that an MP's gossip is protected but not the footballers You only have to google who you think is involved and you'll get the rest..
The MP was a disgrace, total abuse of his position and using that honorable excuse was just rubbish. Conf 2 25 May In reply to fxceltic: Freeeeeeeedooommmmmmmmmmm.
In reply to dissonance: I bet that's normal. Why take out an injunction unless it's to mean something? But I think you're slightly missing my point, which was that children also have a right to respect for their privacy and family life, and when stories about Dad was doing this or that are in the paper, they aren't getting it.
As to nothing intelligent being said meaning nothing I agree with, every commentary I've seen has been limited to 'the law's making itself look stupid' or 'we shouldn't have a privacy law anyway'. I haven't seen any suggestion at all as to how the law should now go about enforcing the privacy rights which Parliament incorporated into our law thirteen years ago, bearing in mind the irresponsibility of MPs and the nature of internet gossip sites.
Honestly, the drivel you people come out with. Why do think the ECHR includes a right to privacy, if not to stop the publication of tittle-tattle? Have you actually read Eady's judgment?
It's not in dispute that Ms T wanted money. Her point was that it wasn't blackmail but a perfectly normal commercial arrangement. The same position as the Screws adopted in the Mosley case when it was criticised for threatening the witnesses with exposure which incidentally was a threat it carried out.
One of the women not only lost her job but also saw her husband lose his job as a result. If only the newspapers would obey privacy laws we'd all be a lot better off, eh? Then , A number of Twitter users are also facing legal action for retweeting or passing on restricted information.
Despite the threats, over the weekend a large number of Twitter users continued to protest the injunctions by tweeting the suspected identity of CTB. The Sunday Herald in Scotland also went so far to put a full page picture of the player on their front page.
They also named him in an article about the super injunctions. British newspapers The Sun and The Daily Mail attempted to have the injunction lifted today, but had their requests refused, according to The Independent. However, shortly after the verdict, a British MP used Gigg's name in parliament. These "super injunctions" have been a huge source of controversy in the UK. Here's what you need to know:. While it is used broadly to refer to a range of gagging orders, a super injunction specifically refers to a UK court order that prevents the press reporting not only on details of a court case, but also prevents them from mentioning the fact that the injunction has been taken out.
Other injunctions may just prevent certain details of a case being known, though they are often referred to as super injunctions. The gagging orders are typically requested by a company or individual preemptively and can be set up in a few hours with a meeting between lawyers and judge. While we can't be sure, reports indicate there may be as many as 30 super injunctions.
Some super injunctions have been been lifted and the details became public knowledge. This, of course, meant The Guardian were unable to publish the article but the information made its way onto Wikileaks which was beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
Having learnt of the issue, the MP for Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Paul Farrelly, used parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of the subject. Even at this stage, the paper took legal advice that publishing the report may be contempt of court so was restricted to publishing a headline simply stating that there was a story about parliamentary proceedings that they were not permitted to publish.
By publishing the headline a series of events were triggered which led to wider public knowledge. Bloggers and users of twitters used their combined power to reveal the information in a mere 12 hours. The fallout from this was that there was a substantial outpouring from anger from MPs for trying to prevent parliamentary discussions being broadcast to the public.
At this point Trafigura gave up the ghost and informed The Guardian they were no longer restricted by the injunction. Ultimately the order was rejected as the judge felt that the real motive of seeking to restrain the details was financial rather than personal.
BBC political commentator and journalist Andrew Marr took out a super injunction in after an extra-marital affair to prevent the information being disclosed. Initially an interim super injunction was granted which restrained publication of these private details as well as prohibiting any reports of the order to prevent the claimant having any intrusions into their private life.
When the case returned to court the anonymity aspect of the injunction was maintained however the super injunction was not arguing that reporting was in the public interest and continuing to restrain this information may actually lead to the public making a more concerted effort to discovering the information.
The judge also stated that anonymity provisions were sufficient to protect the identity of the claimant. Initially, Hutcheson successfully had an interim super injunction granted restraining publication of the material. The two parties negotiated a compromise where they would voluntarily continue the effects of the injunction but the claim would cease to proceed.
News Group Newspapers Ltd.
0コメント