to think this is clearly a happy, happy marriage

[marryoneorbecomeone]

Nothing to see here, just a happy couple. The Daily Mail said so, so it must be a FACT.

Still standing better than I ever did

Lol, that made me laugh this morning along with advice by a newlywed on how to have a long marriage.

It isn't handwringing about being quoted; because it's never just quoted. It's taking threads and then turning them in to news articles. Or taking comments from Twitter on what users thought of Dermot o leary's tight trousers and turning it in to a whole article.

Also, articles like this www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3173397/Woman-London-train-platform-internet-hit-s-pictured-long-pink-object-sticking-backpack.html which are off, people thrust in to the spotlight without asking to because papers can make "news" out of any old shit. Likewise, DM picking out threads of MN and making them news. Fine, it's publically available but you'd have to search specifically to find it. Publishing threads with potentially identifying scenarios is a bit off - imagine posting on a forum and then finding it being splashed all over the national news.

DM are assholes.
but I think this has backfired on them.
Surely anyone with a brain will see the irony is that - the article is true? REgardless of what other private consensual events may or may not ha e occurred, a couple can still have a very happy marriage.
I think the DM just look like fools and it's not worked.

I'm amazed this thread hasn't been pulled.

How do the legalities work? I'm in the US so can buy the National Enquirer if I wanted to. Not that I ever would.

So, if I bought it, read it and then talked about it on here, how would I be breaking the law? Or could I only discuss it on a non English site?

So, if I bought it, read it and then talked about it on here, how would I be breaking the law? Or could I only discuss it on a non English site?

I think that's it.

You'd have think the Law Lords would have noticed by now that websites are global.

Which is why DM are tantrumming, of course; They used to be a small-minded middle-brow British print tabloid. Now they are a trashy 'sleb news' website with big US ans Aus readerships and they are throwing fits that they are being trounced by the US competition.

(Why the DM particularly )

Am I allowed to ask, or is anyone allowed to explain what the injunction is for? I don't read papers or celeb mags, don't have a TV and don't tend to look at entertainment news, so I've no idea what is going on.

Has a national paper with lazy 'journalists' made a report about someone (I can clearly see which someone btw!) allegedly cheating, and the injunction is preventing them from reporting further? Or is it to stop anyone in England and Wales stating that this person has cheated? Or have I got it completely wrong?

Just google their names and the word injunction.

Am I allowed to ask, or is anyone allowed to explain what the injunction is for?

Nope

If a super-injunction existed, we wouldn't even be able to allude to the fact that it did exist

This thread is just random hypothetical burble.

Has a national paper with lazy 'journalists' made a report about someone (I can clearly see which someone btw!) allegedly cheating, and the injunction is preventing them from reporting further? Or is it to stop anyone in England and Wales stating that this person has cheated? Or have I got it completely wrong?

There haven't been any reports along those lines in UK publications.

Doh! Sorry, I was being spectacularly dim there. I just assumed there wouldn't be anything about it, there being an injunction against it

Googling now.

The injunction is in place here but not in us. Also not in a lot of other countries around world.

Google has told me very little. I'm not interested enough to look any further.

It's not amazingly interesting... Story would go away faster if injunction was never there.

It's not amazingly interesting... Story would go away faster if injunction was never there

Ain't that the truth?

Some people do massively overestimate how interesting they are generall, though

Some people do massively overestimate how interesting they are generall, though grin

So true!

Just5minsWithDacre

"This thread is just random hypothetical burble"

That's mumsnet, right there.

very clever of the DM - especially for those of us in Scotland who are in the know

I thinks it's less passive aggressive to the subjects of the article and rather more a giant fuck you to the Supreme Court.

No, it's very clearly directed at the individuals involved, and is extremely unpleasant.

As for the court - realistically what choice do they have? The law needs to be taken seriously. Suppose newspapers abroad were happily publishing the names of child abuse victims in the UK together with full details of what was done to them? Do we really think the courts in this country should say "Oh, well, people can read those articles and their names on the internet, therefore we will allow those children to be plastered all over the UK papers?" It's the same principle.

How anyone can get dressed up in silly wigs etc, decide something is not allowed to be published

No wigs in the Supreme Court.

The law needs to be taken seriously.

Surely free speech and a free press should also be taken seriously. Britain's democracy evolved in an environment of free speech. Without, the whole system is unbalanced.

We don't have free speech, and we never have. There have always been restrictions in terms of slander and libel, and more recently in terms of equality and privacy. The basic principle is, rightly, that privacy only gets overridden if it's in the public interest. Preventing newspapers from making money by publishing prurient information when there is no public interest does not jeopardise the right to free speech one iota.

It's hard to scrutinise whether the courts are correctly balancing "public interests" vs. "privacy" with superinjunctions.