x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=25151		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  pcernie [ Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
The injunction is back: entertainer blocks extramarital affair story | Media | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/m ... fair-story

Here's the thing, if there's no public interest... why would it be devastating to the entertainer? And it seems a bit late to be thinking of the kids now, the internet being that very reason.
Author:  jonbwfc [ Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
To be honest, I tend to actually agree with the judge in this case. The public would certainly be interested, but that doesn't mean its' in the public's interest to know, or that the public interest outweighs people's right privacy in their private lives, even if they are celebrities, provided nobody is being hurt.

If the celebrity in this case was making some gain from publicly espousing marital fidelity then maybe. But he's OK with it, his wife's OK with it. His kids apparently don't know about it. So what's the grounds for making it public beyond voyeurism?

Plus I have to be honest, I don't have a very high opinion of the couple who are selling the story. That's pretty sleazy behaviour.
Author:  pcernie [ Sun Apr 10, 2016 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
Scottish newspaper reveals identity of superinjunction couple | Media | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... ion-couple

Bad enough American publications have given the game away, but the law's so pathetic and ill thought out it doesn't even stand in part of the UK.
Author:  Spreadie [ Sun Apr 10, 2016 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
pcernie wrote:
Scottish newspaper reveals identity of superinjunction couple | Media | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... ion-couple

Bad enough American publications have given the game away, but the law's so pathetic and ill thought out it doesn't even stand in part of the UK.

It took a couple of minutes on google to find out - it was hardly a surprise.
Author:  big_D [ Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
jonbwfc wrote:
To be honest, I tend to actually agree with the judge in this case. The public would certainly be interested, but that doesn't mean its' in the public's interest to know, or that the public interest outweighs people's right privacy in their private lives, even if they are celebrities, provided nobody is being hurt.

If the celebrity in this case was making some gain from publicly espousing marital fidelity then maybe. But he's OK with it, his wife's OK with it. His kids apparently don't know about it. So what's the grounds for making it public beyond voyeurism?

Plus I have to be honest, I don't have a very high opinion of the couple who are selling the story. That's pretty sleazy behaviour.

I couldn't have put it better myself.
Author:  Paul1965 [ Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
It is a sad, sad situation.
Author:  davrosG5 [ Mon Apr 11, 2016 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
Paul1965 wrote:
It is a sad, sad situation.

Have we not done that joke already. :D

In other news, injunction doesn't apply in Scotland so one of the Scottish newspapers has published the details anyway, though not on their website. clickety

Quote:
Linking the decision to publish the identities to the Panama Papers revelations, the newspaper’s editorial said: “Maybe, as the very rich and very powerful clients of Mossack Fonseca run to their lawyers, it was bad luck that [the celebrities’] superinjunction emerged.

“Because, just to be clear, we are not naming them because of the story they are trying to suppress. We couldn’t care less. We do, however, care about free speech, a free press and very wealthy people spending huge sums of money stopping stories they do not much like the sound of.

“If we did not name them, it would only encourage people – possibly celebrities, more probably tycoons and politicians – with something to hide to attempt to hide it behind a court order.”
Author:  John_Vella [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
Paul1965 wrote:
It is a sad, sad situation.

I imagine that if any English newsrags published the names they'd probably get a rocket, man.
Author:  MrStevenRogers [ Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
super injunction and now take down requests demanded of google. it does seem a self inflicted yellow brick road to self destruction or maybe they believe they are just pin ball wizards trying their luck ...
Author:  paulzolo [ Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
Has no one heard of the Streisand Effect....? :roll:
Author:  davrosG5 [ Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks story
paulzolo wrote:
Has no one heard of the Streisand Effect....? :roll:

Apparently the people who should be paying most attention to it have not.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/