Injunctions - This Is Just Getting Stupid

[Cube]

So, injunctions and stuff have been all the rage the last few weeks. They're basically a way for celebrities to get some privacy after they cheat on their wife or similar.

 

Now, I think it's fair enough that celebrities have the right to not have their stories printed in all the newspapers and stuff (even though they don't deserve it). However a recent case (non celebrity-relates) just takes things over the top:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/13/twitter-and-facebook-publication-banned-injunction

 

This case in particular makes it illegal for anyone in the UK to talk about whatever has a injunction on places like Twitter and Facebook, with the possibility of a jail sentence (although I doubt the jail sentence it will ever happen).

 

What are they going to do next? Make it illegal for anyone in the UK to talk about it at all, and how is the general public supposed to know who has an injunction if it's illegal for people to say who has an injunction?

[The Peeps]

*Waits for Cube to get arrested*

 

*Waits for Mad Monkey to claim the world is over*

 

Although I think it's no one's business what celebrities get up to in their personal lives - except the ones that literally only exist to spread their lives across several magazines per month, I don't think injunctions are good.

 

It definitely shouldn't result in a jail sentence if someone just tweets 'mr blah has an injunction' or something.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I'm not sure what the big deal here is. All they've done is expanded the law to accomodate new media.

 

It's like plugging a hole on a leaky bucket when a new one appears. It's the same bucket, but with added protection.

[The Mad Monkey]

*Waits for Mad Monkey to claim the world is over*

 

Don't worry, we still have another fourteen and a half months to go.

[MoogleViper]

I'm not sure what the big deal here is. All they've done is expanded the law to accomodate new media.

 

It's like plugging a hole on a leaky bucket when a new one appears. It's the same bucket, but with added protection.

 

So you don't think it's ridiculous that somebody could go to jail for writing on their facebook/twitter about how Ryan Giggs took out a superinjunction to stop people talking about his affair with Imogen Thomas?

 

Yeah that's right, I'm a fucking badass.

[EEVILMURRAY]

So you don't think it's ridiculous that somebody could go to jail for writing on their facebook/twitter about how Ryan Giggs took out a superinjunction to stop people talking about his affair with Imogen Thomas?

If the whole point of Giggs taking out such a legal superinjunction was to prevent actions like that, then no.

[Cube]

Ryan Giggs took out a superinjunction to stop people talking about his affair with Imogen Thomas?

 

And if you spread that and it wasn't true, then there would be absolutely nothing wrong with it.

 

If the whole point of Giggs taking out such a legal superinjunction was to prevent actions like that, then no.

 

But the only reason any of us know about the legal superinjunction is because people have broken the legal superinjunction. It's one of the most bizarre legal things there is as as the whole point of it means that they can't tell us that it's illegal to say this stuff.

[EEVILMURRAY]

But the only reason any of us know about the legal superinjunction is because people have broken the legal superinjunction.

Then off to Alcatraz with them.

It's one of the most bizarre legal things there is as as the whole point of it means that they can't tell us that it's illegal to say this stuff.

They do shit like that all the time! You'll mainly hear it on the news that a crime has been committed and that the defendant/victim "can't be named for legal reasons". It's not much different here. You know something bad has gone down but you can't be told the specifics.

Edited May 13, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY

[MoogleViper]

They do shit like that all the time! You'll mainly hear it on the news that a crime has been committed and that the defendant/victim "can't be named for legal reasons". It's not much different here. You know something bad has gone down but you can't be told the specifics.

 

No that's completely different. In those cases it's to protect the victim, suspect and to prevent the investigation from being impeded.

 

This is so rich people can slip £50k into a judges pocket and then send innocent people to jail for merely mentioning these cheating cunts' names.

[Ganepark32]

Not going to lie, I read the thread title as 'Injections - This Is Just Getting Stupid' and expected a rant about not liking injections and such and such

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

In short: This is ridiculous.

[EEVILMURRAY]

This is so rich people can slip £50k into a judges pocket and then send innocent people to jail for merely mentioning these cheating cunts' names.

It's a genius "mind your own business" clause. Hopefully it'll help put many tabloids out of work.

[Cube]

I agree that it's fine to stop tabloids printing it, but expanding it to the general public is a bit far.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

It's a genius "mind your own business" clause. Hopefully it'll help put many tabloids out of work.

 

Which can be easily misused against free speech.

 

Some would argue it already has been.

[EEVILMURRAY]

I agree that it's fine to stop tabloids printing it, but expanding it to the general public is a bit far.

I think it's mainly due to the popularity of social network sites, not the public themselves. A comment on Facebook/shit like Twitter can be seen by many more than most, if not all newspaper readers.

[Rummy]

I clicked this thread thinking it was about injections.

 

For those in a similar boat, it is not.

 

I do think injections are silly though, but they're definitely not as silly as injunctions. It's quite ridiculous you can get an order that stops you even talking about the fact there is an order.

[MoogleViper]

Not going to lie, I read the thread title as 'Injections - This Is Just Getting Stupid' and expected a rant about not liking injections and such and such

 

I clicked this thread thinking it was about injections.

 

For those in a similar boat, it is not.

 

I do think injections are silly though, but they're definitely not as silly as injunctions. It's quite ridiculous you can get an order that stops you even talking about the fact there is an order.

 

Keep up Rummy.

[flameboy]

So wait if I as a single person posted such things I could get done for it? Even if I'm just chatting with friends and have learnt about such stuff via my own means?

 

For example I knew about Wayne Rooney and that girl he was having it off with for a while because it's my dads casino that was reported as being where they met (tons of city and utd players go there) and my dad said he had been coming in for weeks with this girl on his arm and being "overly friendly" or something, so if I tweeted "heard rooney was in manc casino with a hottie, what would his missus say?" So if he had filed a super injunction I'd be liable for legal action even though I'm just making a remark based on something I've been told.

 

What next internet forums? Where does it end?

[Yars Revenge]

I was chatting the other day to someone about these injunctions and i was told if a guy has an affair it protects his family (i.e wife and kids) from the media intrusion that would be caused when the affair leaks out,well isn`t that a shame!,if the guy wasn`t such a dishonest sleeze bag then his family would not be embarrased,getting harased or anything else for that matter.

Its his fault so he should see what happens to his family because of his dishonesty and he will learn his lesson.

[EddieColeslaw]

So wait if I as a single person posted such things I could get done for it? Even if I'm just chatting with friends and have learnt about such stuff via my own means?

 

For example I knew about Wayne Rooney and that girl he was having it off with for a while because it's my dads casino that was reported as being where they met (tons of city and utd players go there) and my dad said he had been coming in for weeks with this girl on his arm and being "overly friendly" or something, so if I tweeted "heard rooney was in manc casino with a hottie, what would his missus say?" So if he had filed a super injunction I'd be liable for legal action even though I'm just making a remark based on something I've been told.

 

What next internet forums? Where does it end?

 

I would think in that case, you'd be liable but he would wouldn't pursue it. Unless you're really rich/he hates you/you're a criminal.

[Goafer]

My view on this is the same as any story about "policing the internet":

 

"Yeah, good luck with that".

[Mr-Paul]

Footballer sues Twitter and its users over injunction.

 

So basically by suing Twitter now, it has basically confirmed the rumours as true (i'm not going to repeat them here, it's quite easy to find out who it is) and he hasn't got away with it like he wanted.

 

I think it is ridiculous he was granted an injunction in the first place. My basic knowledge of media law (which I get to study next year which should be interesting with all this going on...) is that things shouldn't be reported if it effects someone's ability to carry out their job. In this case, he's been caught cheating, which has no effect on his ability to play football. He has been granted privacy where the other party in the case, Imogen Thomas has been left to fend for herself in the open.

 

I saw her on the TV the other day, and I don't know how truthful her story is, but she apparently only went to the newspaper after the player took out an injunction on anything being said, as she felt betrayed. He is accusing her of trying to blackmail him.

 

If a member of the general public has had an affair, they can't take an injunction out stopping people from talking about it. But apparently now someone famous can, and people can be sued now if they talk about hearsay on Twitter?

 

Tiger Woods didn't get an injunction stopping all his affairs from being reported. Wayne Rooney has done plenty of crap that's been reported in the media. But now apparently a celebrities reputation is worth more than another person's. Why should it be any different to in the past?

 

If you're a footballer you know it's part of the job to be in the public eye, you take the benefits, the fame and the fortune. So if you do something stupid, you should have to face the consequences in the public eye.

 

If anything it has ruined his reputation more than if he admitted it, apologised in public and got on with his job.

 

It makes me wonder about the structure of our legal system. So much of it is unwritten, and set by precedent, which can be changed. We have no written constitution, and power is now granted to a handful of judges who can decide who can have "privacy" and who can't.

 

Rant over!

[Rummy]

Does he not have to take up a case against Twitter in the US courts? Are they not protected in the US by one of their amendments etc?

 

Tbh, I still don't know the names of all the people we supposedly can't talk about, but I still think the whole idea of not being able to is fucking ridiculous, this country is getting so stupid sometimes.

[flameboy]

Does he not have to take up a case against Twitter in the US courts? Are they not protected in the US by one of their amendments etc?

 

Tbh, I still don't know the names of all the people we supposedly can't talk about, but I still think the whole idea of not being able to is fucking ridiculous, this country is getting so stupid sometimes.

 

Well isn't it Ryan Giggs who had it off with Imogen and is taking twitter to court? I remember reading a piece somewhere that super injunctions could never happen in the US because of their laws so I don't see it working;

 

Media lawyer Nick Lockett said the legal action against Twitter may not have much effect.

 

"What will have to be established is that Twitter was subject to the jurisdiction of the court," he said. While UK courts claim worldwide jurisdiction this has often proved hard to enforce.

 

In the case of the US, said Mr Lockett, the situation was complicated by the Communications Decency Act which grants immunity from prosecution for providers of "interactive computer services" under certain circumstances.

 

Lawyers acting for CTB may struggle to prove that Twitter does not deserve this immunity, said Mr Lockett.

[Nintendohnut]

It's probably prosecutable over here just because people could access the tweets in the UK. As long as someone could have read it then it counts.

 

Also, in terms of the 'if I said Ryan Giggs had an affair with her and it was wrong there wouldn't be anything legally wrong with it',it would actually be defamation, and if you put it online it could theoretically go to court, but in reality it never would.

 

Anyway yeah, it's stupid. Been going on for years, funny how it's only just made it into the public eye now really.