Residents of the UK should be well informed about superinjunctions. Us folks in America typically are stunned when we learn about this practice for the first time. Recently a very famous celebrity from the UK was involved with an extramarital affair that involved a threesome. That celebrity was able to convince British courts to issue a superinjunction that prohibits media in the UK from reporting the story. Thus, it is technically illegal for our British members to name names and discuss the merits of the story in the media. It turns out that Twitter is sending notices to some of it's participants warning them that they could be libel to prosecution for "tweeting" specific names and discussing details of this celebrity's escapades.
The linked article, and the comments following, are very revealing if not shocking. I also learned how the EU is pursuing a lawsuit against Google in an effort to get them to remove certain things from search results -- things like the above celebrity story. This is being done under a "right to be forgotten" policy.
There are so many wrongs in this situation that it's hard to believe it's actually happening. The superinjunction applies only to the UK at the moment, but if the EU can force Google to alter it's history, then the entire world of the Internet could be affected. It's hard to believe this kind of censorship exists in a supposedly free society. Apparently one's rights and freedoms depend on one's celebrity and wealth.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160 ... some.shtml
Superinjunctions
Re: Superinjunctions
as for the rest of it, I rather liked answer # 29, a mr hogg.
-
Icey
Re: Superinjunctions
It's absolutely ridiculous, and makes us look idiots.
The thing is, some people are VERY interested in the private lives of others, whether it's sexual or not, and if these celebs don't want people talking about them, then either they should keep their practices to themselves, or be very wary of who they have "relationships" with.
I agree with Vikki. It's no one's business what people get up to in private, and unless it breaks the law, it's really no one's business but their own. However, some seem to get a thrill out of wanting to know the details of what (celebs in particular) get up to. Famous rock stars and others were open about what went off in their "wanton youth" in the 60's and 70's. It didn't particularly shock those who read about it. Folk grinned, and then moved on to something more interesting, but the children of this latest revelation're the innocent ones in all this, and they'll have to bear the brunt of what their parents get up to.
The thing is, some people are VERY interested in the private lives of others, whether it's sexual or not, and if these celebs don't want people talking about them, then either they should keep their practices to themselves, or be very wary of who they have "relationships" with.
I agree with Vikki. It's no one's business what people get up to in private, and unless it breaks the law, it's really no one's business but their own. However, some seem to get a thrill out of wanting to know the details of what (celebs in particular) get up to. Famous rock stars and others were open about what went off in their "wanton youth" in the 60's and 70's. It didn't particularly shock those who read about it. Folk grinned, and then moved on to something more interesting, but the children of this latest revelation're the innocent ones in all this, and they'll have to bear the brunt of what their parents get up to.
Re: Superinjunctions
The shock in this story is that the famous celebrity can obtain a court sanctioned injunction that censors the news reporting. Yes, the news is seedy and casts a bad light on the individual, but that's the price one pays for infamy. It's incredible that a single individual has the power to impose a nationwide blackout of the public news media. The same kind of shock is magnified when the European Union in effect is openly trying to suppress information presented on the public network. If it were Iran, North Korea, or any of the Easter European countries I can understand how it would happen. But all this manipulation of facts is in the civilized Western World. It's infuriating to say the least.
Re: Superinjunctions
see? nobody cares there, so no such injunction is needed.
-
Icey
Re: Superinjunctions
Money talks, Yogi. If it'd been Joe Bloggs, it would've been a different matter.
As for the EU .... words fail me.
As for the EU .... words fail me.
Re: Superinjunctions
Perhaps you are misinterpreting my criticism. It is criminal to give anyone the power to censor the media from publishing the news regarding selected individuals. Dictators (it's trite, but, Hitler comes to mind here) would be expected to limit and manipulate what their subjected people know. But, FFS, England and the whole of the UK supposedly exist as a free society. I don't get how it can be acceptable to allow such things as superinjunctions. People take to the streets and conduct referendums every time they feel abused by the powers that be. Where are the demonstrations when the right to access the news is concerned?
Re: Superinjunctions
-
Icey
Re: Superinjunctions
But it doesn't apply across the board, as we all know. Possibly revelations about Prince Andrew were hushed up. He defended himself and said that nothing inappropriate'd happened between himself and under-age girls. All of a sudden, nothing more was heard about it. Maybe the man was totally innocent, as he protested, but no one'll ever find out.
Prince William's asked that no photographs of his family are taken or published without strict consent, after topless pics were published of Catherine. This's since been adhered to.
What it means, is that if someone has the position or money, private details can be hushed up, saying that it violates a person's privacy or that it serves no purpose to publish the facts. Well if this's so, it SHOULD follow across the board.
It's the same type of situation regarding Gonçalo Amaral who originally investigated the case of missing Madeleine McCann. He's still after suing for defamation after having his reputation torn to bits and losing his money and job. This particular instance seems like one of the very worst cases imaginable, and new copies of his book, The Truth of the Lie, are being rushed out around Europe. Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions which were put to her by Portuguese police, and what she DID answer's been kept private. People in the UK've demanded to know why the PM supported this case straight away and our government's supplied funding, and yet nothing like this's been given to other families whose children've gone missing or been abducted. The press've been stifled, and if an "ordinary" couple'd found their child missing on holiday, under the same circumstances, they would've at the very least gone to court for child neglect.
Where it suits the needs, folk can keep the media away, and things deemed as being of "no public interest" ARE kept quiet. Don't be surprised. This goes on all the time.
Prince William's asked that no photographs of his family are taken or published without strict consent, after topless pics were published of Catherine. This's since been adhered to.
What it means, is that if someone has the position or money, private details can be hushed up, saying that it violates a person's privacy or that it serves no purpose to publish the facts. Well if this's so, it SHOULD follow across the board.
It's the same type of situation regarding Gonçalo Amaral who originally investigated the case of missing Madeleine McCann. He's still after suing for defamation after having his reputation torn to bits and losing his money and job. This particular instance seems like one of the very worst cases imaginable, and new copies of his book, The Truth of the Lie, are being rushed out around Europe. Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions which were put to her by Portuguese police, and what she DID answer's been kept private. People in the UK've demanded to know why the PM supported this case straight away and our government's supplied funding, and yet nothing like this's been given to other families whose children've gone missing or been abducted. The press've been stifled, and if an "ordinary" couple'd found their child missing on holiday, under the same circumstances, they would've at the very least gone to court for child neglect.
Where it suits the needs, folk can keep the media away, and things deemed as being of "no public interest" ARE kept quiet. Don't be surprised. This goes on all the time.