Super Injunctions

Sewinman

I am thoroughly reassured that my 'anti' opinion on injunctions is the right position - our resident Tory-boy squirt, W1, has the opposite view....always a good barometer.

dhope

Sewinman wrote:

I am thoroughly reassured that my 'anti' opinion on injunctions is the right position - our resident Tory-boy squirt, W1, has the opposite view....always a good barometer.

The problem I'm finding is that you're turning me against my normal Guardian-reading inclination

W1

Sewinman wrote:

I am thoroughly reassured that my 'anti' opinion on injunctions is the right position - our resident Tory-boy squirt, W1, has the opposite view....always a good barometer.

How is your position possibly "right" - there is no right and wrong, it's a matter of opinion. I think you fail to understand the arguments.

It's certainly standard for a commie to demand their "rights" at a cost to others.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I am thoroughly reassured that my 'anti' opinion on injunctions is the right position - our resident Tory-boy squirt, W1, has the opposite view....always a good barometer.

How is your position possibly "right" - there is no right and wrong, it's a matter of opinion. I think you fail to understand the arguments.

It's certainly standard for a commie to demand their "rights" at a cost to others.

A solid take...it is may fly time after all - duffers fortnight.

The latest on injunctions: "The Hon Mr Zam" (The 4th Baron H*******) tries to have sister-in-law secretly jailed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/ ... ion-breach

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I am thoroughly reassured that my 'anti' opinion on injunctions is the right position - our resident Tory-boy squirt, W1, has the opposite view....always a good barometer.

How is your position possibly "right" - there is no right and wrong, it's a matter of opinion. I think you fail to understand the arguments.

It's certainly standard for a commie to demand their "rights" at a cost to others.

A solid take...it is may fly time after all - duffers fortnight.

The latest on injunctions: "The Hon Mr Zam" (The 4th Baron H*******) tries to have sister-in-law secretly jailed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/ ... ion-breach

Oh good, a guardian link - how wonderful.

I fail to understand how "freedom of expression" trumps the right not to have lies printed about an individual, particularly bearing in mind that the remedy is so useless after the event. That's not to say that all injunctions are correctly issued, but they do have their place and it's not for the shoreditch crowd on Twitter to play vigilante when they are so ignorant of the facts (unlike the judg), or a loudmouth MP to want to make a name for himself.

Sewinman

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

dhope

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

Sewinman

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

You seem to be reading a hell of a lot into my posts!? :shock:

I know that - hence why W1's "but it stops nasty journos telling lies' argument is completely missing the point.

estampida

its all about people try to save their own necks

Sir Fred - There is only 5-6 women in the top tier of RBS management at the time so guess who it can be............ Assuming that is was a women and not a homosexual fling.......

S***** Gerr*** (next 1 to be named) - a foot ball player who has knocked up a 16 yr old, the first question would be how young was she when he met her I bet 14 or so.

Any good reason why a 30 yr old married man would do that, unless he likes them too young!!! - rumor that he is signing to europe so when this hits the fan in the summer he is gone.

These are the actions of fools and cowards that should not get the kudos and protection of the law.

And probably should not be viewed as respected members of the community as they are clearly from the jeremy Kyle show.

dhope

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

You seem to be reading a hell of a lot into my posts!? :shock:

I know that - hence why W1's "but it stops nasty journos telling lies' argument is completely missing the point.

Maybe I missed the intended tone but just appeared as though you'd shifted back to the 'injunctions are there to protect the mistakes of the wealthy from becoming public' stance, which is the view I find too lazy

Edit. Like Estampida's post above, that's the perfect example of the lazy Sun-reading, WVM cliche argument

estampida

Cheers,

but the tabloids will protect footballers, as seen with the whole roasting theme they ran a few years ago muddling up the whole was she raped or not........

cos most 17 yr old girls really want a 6 way with your team mates or at least they are happy to suggest that

the only real winner is the company that makes newspaper ink, and reporters that have no creative streak

EKE_38BPM

estampida wrote:

...S***** Gerr*** (next 1 to be named) - a foot ball player who has knocked up a 16 yr old, ...

I heard this ages ago (at least a year ago). The player in question was certain to leave his club (Liverp**l) last season and he is still there.

Going back to DH's hypothetical question, suppose celebrity A is shagging celebrity B is a nightclub toilet and joe public tweeter witnesses them mid-bone, then whilst cycling home is left hooked by an Addison Lee chump and comatose for a few weeks.
When joe public tweeter wakes up they tweet saying "OMG! Saw Sleb A shagging Sleb B at Dirty Slags!"

Whilst the joe public tweeter was out cold the two celebs both told their mates and one of them decide to try to keep it secret with an SI. Joe public tweeter wakes up and tweets what they saw.

The info is now in the public domain of twitter/cyberspace/the blogosphere but joe public tweeter didn't know they were breaking an SI, just being a gossip.

What would happen in that situation?

dhope

EKE_38BPM wrote:

estampida wrote:

...S***** Gerr*** (next 1 to be named) - a foot ball player who has knocked up a 16 yr old, ...

I heard this ages ago (at least a year ago). The player in question was certain to leave his club (Liverp**l) last season and he is still there.

Going back to DH's hypothetical question, suppose celebrity A is shagging celebrity B is a nightclub toilet and joe public tweeter witnesses them mid-bone, then whilst cycling home is left hooked by an Addison Lee chump and comatose for a few weeks.
When joe public tweeter wakes up they tweet saying "OMG! Saw Sleb A shagging Sleb B at Dirty Slags!"

Whilst the joe public tweeter was out cold the two celebs both told their mates and one of them decide to try to keep it secret with an SI. Joe public tweeter wakes up and tweets what they saw.

The info is now in the public domain of twitter/cyberspace/the blogosphere but joe public tweeter didn't know they were breaking an SI, just being a gossip.

What would happen in that situation?

Would imagine if it happened in a public place in the first place then the argument that they wanted it kept secret would fall apart quickly.

And it's Gareth Barry, not Stevie G that's up next.

EKE_38BPM

dhope wrote:

Would imagine if it happened in a public place in the first place then the argument that they wanted it kept secret would fall apart quickly.

And it's Gareth Barry, not Stevie G that's up next.

OK, forget the nightclub scenario, say it happened in Sleb A's house and joe public tweeter was the window cleaner? Private property but because both Slebs told their mate's it is impossible to say who tweeted to break the SI.

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

Actually this:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

Is the correct assertion.

Lies are the byproduct of the initial fact becoming public. For example:

Giggs had a alleged relationship with Imogen Thomas and decided to get a Super Injunction. That's where the facts stops. 7 month affair, Imogen blackmailed Giggs, whcih she denies etc ad infinitum. Some of which will be lies that stem from the initial fact of:

Imogen
Giggs
Super Injunction

W1

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

You seem to be reading a hell of a lot into my posts!? :shock:

I know that - hence why W1's "but it stops nasty journos telling lies' argument is completely missing the point.

It's not missing the point. You are anti injunctions as they limit freedom of expression. That "freedom" includes the ability to print anything, include utter horse manure, in the name of "freedom". I am happy for injunctions to be in place where there is (a) a risk that what is proposed to be printed is wrong and/or (b) even if something is true, the balance remains in favour of it not being printed (for any number of reasons). So what point am I missing? There may be instances where injunctions are not appropriate - there are ways and means of dealing with these situations that do not favour mob-rule and instead rely on actually knowing, understanding and listening to the facts as argued - something that neither you, me twitter idiots or big mouth MPs have had the abilitty to do.

Still, as an advocate of direct action, criminal damage etc etc I'm not surprised that your preference is somewhat outside of the law....

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

You seem to be reading a hell of a lot into my posts!? :shock:

I know that - hence why W1's "but it stops nasty journos telling lies' argument is completely missing the point.

It's not missing the point. You are anti injunctions as they limit freedom of expression. That "freedom" includes the ability to print anything, include utter horse manure, in the name of "freedom".

Well no

Some Super Injunctions prevent a party being named publicly. It doesn't prevent the press from writing the story just naming the party or parties involved.

I do not understand how that limits the freedom of expression. However, where conflict arises is where a person uses a Super Injunction to prevent the public from being informed what they are really like. I.e. A person has developed a public image of a caring dutiful husband child role model and has an Injunction put in place to prevent his name being mentioned in a ongoing sexual harrassment trial as such a reveal would damage his public image.

I think under those circumstances - there are others - the public has a right to know.

The grey area has always been what is private and what is in the public interests,. much like your real identity.

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

What have 'lies' got to do with it? The injunctions are in place to stop facts getting out.

FFS, stop just picking the boring lefty stance, it cheapens that side of argument.
They're there to prevent information/opinion from being voiced publicly prior to a trial that would determine if it would be fair to those affected to voice it. Whether it's true or not isn't necessarily the point.

You seem to be reading a hell of a lot into my posts!? :shock:

I know that - hence why W1's "but it stops nasty journos telling lies' argument is completely missing the point.

It's not missing the point. You are anti injunctions as they limit freedom of expression. That "freedom" includes the ability to print anything, include utter horse manure, in the name of "freedom". I am happy for injunctions to be in place where there is (a) a risk that what is proposed to be printed is wrong and/or (b) even if something is true, the balance remains in favour of it not being printed (for any number of reasons). So what point am I missing? There may be instances where injunctions are not appropriate - there are ways and means of dealing with these situations that do not favour mob-rule and instead rely on actually knowing, understanding and listening to the facts as argued - something that neither you, me twitter idiots or big mouth MPs have had the abilitty to do.

Still, as an advocate of direct action, criminal damage etc etc I'm not surprised that your preference is somewhat outside of the law....

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

bendertherobot

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no

Some Super Injunctions prevent a party being named publicly. .

ALL super injunctions do this because you cannot report the existence of them.

Gigg's case was not a super injunction. Even the press seem to be waking up to the fact that they have misused the term.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

Well no

Some Super Injunctions prevent a party being named publicly. It doesn't prevent the press from writing the story just naming the party or parties involved.

I do not understand how that limits the freedom of expression. However, where conflict arises is where a person uses a Super Injunction to prevent the public from being informed what they are really like. I.e. A person has developed a public image of a caring dutiful husband child role model and has an Injunction put in place to prevent his name being mentioned in a ongoing sexual harrassment trial as such a reveal would damage his public image.

I think under those circumstances - there are others - the public has a right to know.

The grey area has always been what is private and what is in the public interests,. much like your real identity.

I think that's the basics of the argument certainly. But to be clear - just because something is true, does not mean that it should be published. A balance has to be drawn between the public interest (and, in the instance you mention, a public "brand" or "identity" which may be false) and other aspects, people and impacts that also need to be considered. Just stating "super injunctions = bad" is far too simplistic.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

I don't think you're stupid, so you either haven't read what I have previously said or are being deliberately obtuse.

a) - suing a paper for printing lies is NOT an effective remedy. And injunction (generally) IS an effective remedy.
b) - I have always distinguished (or sought to do so) between printing lies, and wishing to print truths but where there are other circumstances that make such a publication unreasonable or unjustifiable.
c) - just because something is true does not by default mean that publishing it should be allowed.

The Rookie

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued.

Because of course that really works doesn't it?

I think injunctions are over used, on the other hand there will often be cases when they should be used, not necesarily to protect the sleb but sometimes to protect others...

Take the Giggs/Thomas affair, she claims a long affair, he says not at all, he claims she asked for money to keep quiet.

Now if it eventually turns out his version was right and there was no affair, she has still won,. she gets to sell her story, and more people will remember the affair than the subsequant correction.......I'm not saying that is what happened I'm just putting forward a what if, clearly all cases hang on many tiny details unique to them.

We also have the EU convention on human rights (that those claiming to not be W1 style Tory lovers seem to love for everything else including freedom of speach - well you can't have it both ways my friends!) that requires the UK BY LAW to protect privacy (where appropriate) and we need a system to do that, Giggs could now take GB PLC to the Euro courts for failing in its duties.

Just to be clear, these are not super injunctions at all (although the media love to call them that), they are merely injunctions with the added proviso that the existence of the injunction is also not to be reported.

Simon

dhope

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

Assume for a moment that instead of cheating, the press found out that a famous footballer had been abused by a parent as a child. In this situation it would certainly not be in the public interest to know and unless the footballer chose to reveal the information there should be no justification for the information becoming public. Injunctions will be appropriate for this situation. That the Giggs injunction happened to be uninteresting smut shouldn't detract from the fact that there are many valid reasons for truths to not be published, and when an injunction is applied for to hide a truth then it should be judged on its merits. It's possibly a failing of the judge to grant this particular injunction, but not a failure of the intention of the injunction itself.

bails87

dhope
Good point, and a situation where you'd hope that the press wouldn't reveal the information. But unfortunately they probably would. I don't like the idea of jailing people for saying things that are true, but with the press doing what it does, injunctions are sometimes necessary. If they were responsible then there'd be no need for injunctions.

Sewinman

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

Assume for a moment that instead of cheating, the press found out that a famous footballer had been abused by a parent as a child. In this situation it would certainly not be in the public interest to know and unless the footballer chose to reveal the information there should be no justification for the information becoming public. Injunctions will be appropriate for this situation. That the Giggs injunction happened to be uninteresting smut shouldn't detract from the fact that there are many valid reasons for truths to not be published, and when an injunction is applied for to hide a truth then it should be judged on its merits. It's possibly a failing of the judge to grant this particular injunction, but not a failure of the intention of the injunction itself.

I don't agree that an injunction is justified, the publication of such a story should be a matter for editorial policy.

bails87

Sewinman wrote:

I don't agree that an injunction is justified, the publication of such a story should be a matter for editorial policy.

But the problem is that at least one major paper would print a story like that. If Mr F wants his childhood to stay a secret then he's forced to take out an injunction.

That's my point, if the press abuses it's 'freedom' then that impinges on the freedoms of the rest of us.

dhope

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

Assume for a moment that instead of cheating, the press found out that a famous footballer had been abused by a parent as a child. In this situation it would certainly not be in the public interest to know and unless the footballer chose to reveal the information there should be no justification for the information becoming public. Injunctions will be appropriate for this situation. That the Giggs injunction happened to be uninteresting smut shouldn't detract from the fact that there are many valid reasons for truths to not be published, and when an injunction is applied for to hide a truth then it should be judged on its merits. It's possibly a failing of the judge to grant this particular injunction, but not a failure of the intention of the injunction itself.

I don't agree that an injunction is justified, the publication of such a story should be a matter for editorial policy.

Would be lovely wouldn't it.
That assumes a level of maturity that doesn't appear to exist in much of the press. There needs to be a degree of pragmatism too.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

Assume for a moment that instead of cheating, the press found out that a famous footballer had been abused by a parent as a child. In this situation it would certainly not be in the public interest to know and unless the footballer chose to reveal the information there should be no justification for the information becoming public. Injunctions will be appropriate for this situation. That the Giggs injunction happened to be uninteresting smut shouldn't detract from the fact that there are many valid reasons for truths to not be published, and when an injunction is applied for to hide a truth then it should be judged on its merits. It's possibly a failing of the judge to grant this particular injunction, but not a failure of the intention of the injunction itself.

I don't agree that an injunction is justified, the publication of such a story should be a matter for editorial policy.

And if editorial policy is "print the stuff that sells the most papers", that's all fine and dandy, is it?|

W1

Sewinman wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

If the papers print lies they can be sued. The main reason you seemed to be keen on injunctions is that they will prevent lies being published, although I do note you have now widened your justification to 'any number of reasons'. My point was that injunctions have not been put in place to prevent falsehoods getting in to the public domain, rather they are there to prevent facts being published. The 'lies' argument is a red herring IMO.

Assume for a moment that instead of cheating, the press found out that a famous footballer had been abused by a parent as a child. In this situation it would certainly not be in the public interest to know and unless the footballer chose to reveal the information there should be no justification for the information becoming public. Injunctions will be appropriate for this situation. That the Giggs injunction happened to be uninteresting smut shouldn't detract from the fact that there are many valid reasons for truths to not be published, and when an injunction is applied for to hide a truth then it should be judged on its merits. It's possibly a failing of the judge to grant this particular injunction, but not a failure of the intention of the injunction itself.

I don't agree that an injunction is justified, the publication of such a story should be a matter for editorial policy.

I fear that you are being serious and, on that bsis, have never read any tabloid. The stuf they are allowed to print is usually bad enough. I wouldn't trust their editors to have any sense whatsoever. I wondr if your view would change if, for whatever reason, you became "known". Happy for any story about you to be printed (provided it was true)?

The Rookie

So a paper that will willing hack the voicemail of people (not just slebs) for stories in a systematic and willfull manner would decide that they wouldn't print such a story then? MY 4R5E!

Simon