Superinjunctions

[NormanTebbit]

Why have judges suddenly decided that a man's right to be an adulterer takes precedence over her right to free expression? Why shouldn't she ho yo yhe papers? Why shouldn't she get paid fir her story?

he decided to pay for sex/ have an affair, he should have thought of the consequences fir his wife and family before he did it.

Well the same principles apply don't they. I very much doubt that Kate Moss has ever taken a super injuction out, otherwise we wouldn't all know quite so much about her coke use. Her brand appears to be pretty undamaged by her behaviour. Naomi Campbell's brand is actually bound up with her image as selfish bitch who won't get out of bed for less than the average family wage or whatever it was and finds it a frightful bore being called to a war crimes tribunal... I actually think her brand might be damaged if we found out she was secretly running an orphanage in the developing world and regularly visiting to read the children stories...

The principle is the same isn't it. The law should not protect brand values based on dishonesty.

Well yes they could. They might have done it. We don't knowbecause we are not allowed to know.

So at the moment it appears Gendered - the shagger protected, the prostitute silenced, because his right to promote his commercial interests without scrutiny are more important than her freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

Wasn't Naomi Campbell the first person to get something close to superinjunction? I was not following her story from about 4-5 years ago. I may be getting this completely wrong of course. Incidentally, I do not see her career flourishing, which brands is she fronting? Maybe only 'blood diamonds inc'...

There are 20 odd people who have their identities protected by these at the moment. Who knows what gender and what they have done? Are we sure it is only about adultery?

Well precisely.

We have no idea what it's about do we.

That's what's wrong with them.

HerBEggs I agree with you and I am totally against this super injunctions. And Norman I guess I am an exception, I do not read 'kiss and tell'.

"against the principle of super injunctions"

We need a proper privacy law in this country. End of story.

Super injunctions are a symptom of the cheque book journalism approach that newspapers have taken in the last 20 years.

It is not in the public interest that a consensual affair is exposed to public ridicule and titilation by either the man or the woman in the relationship.

All parties need protection so they can have a private life.

The problem will come when a super injunction is used to suppress a story that really is in the public interest.

In the Independent today, a pissed off shagee gives her POV

her thoughts here

article here

From the article

"Other subjects of injunctions include Imogen Thomas, a model, whose identity was revealed when the details of the injunction were varied to permit her being named but not the married footballer she had had an affair with."

Now if that's how it happened, then that bleeding appalling.

MoreBeta what do you mean by "proper' privacy law? What constitutes proper or improper?

Should a person in the public eye have an opportunity to build a fictional image of him/herself and trade this image as real without being challenged by others? Motivations of others are irrelevant.

I don't give a toss about Tiger Woods' private life, but the consequences he suffered as a result of dislocation of his private/public persona are right. Do you disagree?

By 'proper' I mean a law that is not being made up by judges as they go along as is now the case.

The problem with a privacy law is that there are times when the revelation of an affair, alcoholism or drug taking is in the public interest. Now I couldn't care less if Kate Moss takes Coke because she's a model and it's practically in the job description. If a judge or top cop is taking it- it's in the puic interest to know.

So I suppose you could make journalists go to court to persuade a judge to lift the law in the interests of the public - but who's to say be'/she will grant that?

And why should celebs such as Paris Hilton be given special treatment?

And yes, why were the women named but not the men?

It seems quite wrong to allow one party to be named but not the other just because they can afford the legal fees to get a super injunction.

I know I was a bit mind-boggled when I read that.

Norman, but I doubt any journalists will be going to any courts as it is a bit more expensive than a trip to McDonalds. It is just wrong to expect a private body (eg a newspaper), especially with commercial interests, to defend public interest in the court of law at a fee. Absurd, in fact.

I do not believe there is any need for any privacy laws over and above what is already in the law. Super injunctions should not be allowed.

I think there probably does need to be a proper privacy law, it's not just slebs who get doorstepped by journalist, if you are the subject of some appalling tragedy, your privacy can be horribly invaded and you don't have the cushion of wealth which slebs have to protect you from invastion of privacy.

Judges making it up as they go along, allowing powerless women to be named but not powerful men, is a scandal. I do think there needs to be some protection for normal people who happen to get caught up in something but don't see why slebs who build up a very careful image and make lots and lots of money from that image, should be allowed to perpetrate a fraud on the public. How is it in the public interest that we should all look at Wayne Rooney or John Terry and think they're really nice family men and role models we'd like our children to admire? Why do we need to be protected from the knowledge that tehy're really quite nasty men?

Good post HerB I agree.

Andrew Marr today amazingly hypocritical!!!

It's a classic case of a type of person (with huge entitlement) who thinks that certain things shouldn't be allowed, but of course those rules wouldn't apply to them For other examples of mindset, see wealthy white men everywhere...

It's all rather poacher turned gamekeeper in the case of Andrew Marr, isn't it.

Iwas a journalist and have been to magistrates court to argue against a order that had been made not allowing us to identify a defendant. This is bread and butter stuff to journalists.

But yes there should be guidelines surrounding these injunctions - they shouldn't be used yo protect someone from embarrassment.

That Andrew Marr thing just shows that it doesn't matter how reasonable and liberal someone is, if you give them privilege at some stage they will abuse it.