Superinjunctions - your thoughts?

[DK]

After the CTB case gave us more entertainment than any Law and Order episode could ever dream of, I'm just wondering - what is this forum's thoughts on superinjunctions? Do you believe in an individual's right to privacy, or do you think that the public's right to know outweighs that?

 

[Keef]

What is the CTB, where is SSR7, and what are superinjunctions?

 

[DK]

A superinjunction is taken out by someone to prevent news from getting out. I'm guessing it was originally intended to protect privacy, but the CTB case involved a married Welsh soccer player who plays in the English Premier League taking out a superinjunction to stop news leaking out about his affair with a glamour model. While he enjoyed a few days of privacy before the news was all over Twitter, the glamour model was named and shamed by the media.

Edit: I forgot to add a "They should only be used in certain cases" option. If a mod sees this, can they please edit the poll to say so?

 

[Keef]

Everybody has a right to privacy, but if you willingly put yourself in a position where you know your privacy will be violated by an eager audience, then the joke is on you. I don't think it is correct for people to go digging in other peoples' business because that violates their privacy.

It is human nature to be interested in other people. No matter whether it's immoral to go digging through somebody's underwear drawer, it's going to happen, so one should prepare themselves.

 

[poolhaas]

Are you talking about Giggs, who cheated on his wife with his brothers wife for about 8 years?

 

[DK]

^ Well, technically if I mentioned the guy you mentioned, I wouldn't be breaking the law here in Ireland, as the superinjunction doesn't even extend as far as Scotland.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Are you talking about Giggs, who cheated on his wife with his brothers wife for about 8 years?

Man how can a brother to that to his bro?

 

[poolhaas]

Man how can a brother to that to his bro?

I was wondering that myself too, having one brother it would be the last thing on my mind.
I guess he could have anything he wanted, but it wasn't enough.

 

[Wolf-M]

After the CTB case gave us more entertainment than any Law and Order episode could ever dream of, I'm just wondering - what is this forum's thoughts on superinjunctions? Do you believe in an individual's right to privacy, or do you think that the public's right to know outweighs that?

I would think that the Giggs' case was not so much about the propriety of imposing superinjunctions but the use (abuse?) of parliamentary sovereignty to bypass the courts and the apparent want of respect for and impossibility of enforcement of court orders in the "new" internet age.

The order must also be seen in context - it's an interlocutory (ie temporary) order that restrains the reporting of the facts of the case (sometimes even its existence) pending its trial subject to periodic reviews by the judge. Such injunctions are not granted without purpose. Suppose if a breach of confidence action was brought by the claimant against the defendant. If the press were allowed to freely report the case the whole point of prosecuting the claim would simply be defeated! The claimant is suing the defendant for divulgence of confidential information (eg secret recipe of a successful commercial product) yet without the injunction it may be possible that the "secret" would be exposed to an even greater audience by virtue of the court proceedings (before the matter is even decided)! Why, then, should the victim bother to go through the trouble of litigation?

IMO I do not see how controversial it is to allow courts to grant such discretionary relief although it may be true that sometimes judges may be too ready to impose this type of orders.

Just for a good laugh:-
http://www.babybarista.com/2011/05/24/upholding-the-rule-of-law/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It depends on the case, really. If a superinjunction was taken out because of concerns over national security, then yes - it's a good idea. However, if it's being taken out by a fotball player who only wants to protect his image, then it's a very bad idea.

 

[orimarc]

Laws before bros before hoes. Maybe in this case it should be "ethics" or "morals" instead of laws, but you get the idea. He was married; if the wife says no, she means it.