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

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?

Augusta will know better than me, but my understanding is that the law on this is still evolving, as regards social media. Are posts in social media publications - in which case the person who writes them and the social media host can potentially be sued in the same way as a newspaper? Or are they a form of broadcasting - also potentially liable to be sued for defamation? Or are social media just a vehicle for communication like a telephone company? - Elton can't sue Three if I use their network to slander him.

Yanbu to start a thread about this as wouldn't want anyone to miss out on this deeply touching article.
Really

From Wikipedia:

Members of the old Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (or "Law Lords") and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council never wore court dress. Instead they were dressed in ordinary business clothing. Since the creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009, the Justices of that Court have retained the Law Lords' tradition of sitting unrobed.

If you look at the judgment, you will note that they are well aware of the internet. If you think it's ridiculous, Blimmin, perhaps you'd like to address the point I made upthread about privacy of child abuse victims.

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

That's partly true of superinjunctions, but this isn't a superinjunction. And even with superinjunctions, you have the safety check arising out of the fact that the media will be represented by heavy duty lawyers who will certainly be keeping a very close eye on that issue and won't hesitate to take it further if necessary.

These are not "victims" Augusta. It's spurious to compare the sexual hijinks of slabs to child abuse victims.

No, it isn't, 80K. The law has to be applied the same to everyone; we can't have a rule that says it doesn't have to be enforced if rich people are affected - as soon as you start saying there are exceptions, those exceptions will widen and you will find the most vulnerable people having their private affairs plastered all over the headlines.

The law has to be applied the same to everyone; we can't have a rule that says it doesn't have to be enforced if rich people are affected

The law isn't applied equally, only the super rich can afford the super injunctions.

But, Durham, breach of injunctions comes under the same contempt of court principles as those protecting the vulnerable, and those court orders are made irrespective of the means of the parties involved.

Blimmin, where do you propose to draw the line? And why do people not qualify for the protection of the law just because they or their parents are celebrities? If the court says that the law isn't to be upheld because the information is available on the internet, then precisely the same principle would have to apply to information on the internet about vulnerable people whose identities are protected by court orders; you can't have decisions about whether the law will be enforced being made by reference to vague principles about "common sense".

The law has to be applied the same to everyone

But you advocate drawing lines on free speech. Why can't lines be drawn here?

I don't advocate drawing lines on free speech. The law imposes them. Do you think it would be fine to give people the freedom to spread racism and hate speech?

And there is a massive difference between saying we will decide what we will allow by way of free speech and deciding that specific laws will protect some people but will exclude a class of people for the dreadful crime of being well known.

A lovely, touching, article.

Look at this recent picture of the happy couple, taking a boat trip with some of their friends who work in the adult-film business. How quaint.

Daily Mail are positively fuming about this!

Nah, daily mail gets more views this way than if it was published at beginning. Plus if it had been it would have been yesterday's chips papers ages ago.

This law only protects the rich. Regular people have to suck it up. It also discriminates against women in favour of men as it is applied in practice.

if they had let the story run people would have read it commented and forgot about .but now every time they do something there will be stupid comments from the papers .and the fact you could see there faces splashed in papers in hawick but denied it a few miles away in berwick is just daft .they said they were protecting the children they have probably just made it worse .

I don't agree April.

The press wouldn't let us or them forget the "incident". Every single article about them would have had a paragraph referring to "the incident" for years and years to come. The obviously don't want that in the press ever single time something is written about them or their DC and I don't blame them.

I'm glad to have seen this thread, it reminded me I have to put olive oil on my shopping list.