Twitter Super Injunctions
May 14, 2011 by USA Post
What is a warrant?
An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do – or, more relevant at this time, to refrain from – certain acts.
The most famous at the moment are the prevention of printing of certain facts or allegations. A party that does not comply will face heavy fines or criminal penalties.
What is a super-order different?
A super-order goes further. Is a form of gagging order prohibiting the press from reporting, even the existence of the warrant, not to mention the details.
Why is the creation of a storm?
Because it addresses the fundamental issues of democracy and the lives they hope to lead.
Many people put freedom of expression and a free and responsible press in the heart of this and feel instinctively front of the judges telling them what they can and cannot say. Of course, the right to privacy is also fundamental and enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, part of UK law since 2000. But for many people, if something is true and not a threat to national security or the security papers that someone should be allowed to print it.
No doubt, people should be able to keep their secret sex life?
Well, that’s a valid way of seeing. The value of exposing the life of a footballer’s sex, even if it is a sexual life outside marriage, is questionable.
Difficult to protect democracy, right? But there is another way. Why do the judges decide what is and is not in the public interest? And if a party to these matters wants to tell her story, saying they will not be allowed to just because the other decide they do not want your spouse to find out?
Gagging orders are symptomatic of a wider problem: freedom of expression versus individual privacy. And surveys have shown that most people do not think celebrities should be able to rebels hiding behind injunctions. And while the famous, rich and generally protect their identities male celebrities woman’s name is in the open, as in the case of Wales Imogen Thomas model. Is that fair? Another aspect is that it is impossible to stop the speculation about who is involved in cases of court order. So while the party in order to muzzle cannot be identified, the names of persons not affected at all can be dragged through the mud. Jemima Khan learned this week when a Twitter user wrongly claimed it was a super-order in place to conceal her appointment with a married man. And Gabby Logan has also been the victim of false rumors. Many people just say this: if you do not wish to be printed do not.
Ah, Twitter – which is right in the middle of this right? Not meet requirements of Twitter and Facebook?
On Friday, a judge of the High Court in the family court issued the first writ of amparo to explicitly prohibit the publication of information on Twitter and Facebook.
Enforcing it is another matter. First, both Twitter and Facebook are U.S. companies. I could probably evade UK law completely, and if not, could argue that users exercise their right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. On Monday, an anonymous Twitter was responsible for recording the traffic site in the UK when it appointed a number of celebrities who have allegedly taken out injunctions super (Jemima Khan was one of the so-called). His story, set in a way impossible to find a great extent, continues on Twitter and looks set to stay there. Anyone based in the UK that the protected information back to Twitter in contempt of court and could face a huge fine or jail. But how to sue thousands of people?
Thus these commandments are always about the sex lives of celebrities?
Not by any means. But they are the ones who get all the attention. Many will, quite rightly, issued to cover the family’s circumstances.
And there are long-standing laws that prevent information being revealed in the media, for example, the identities of the victims of sexual crimes. While sex seems to have become the focus of the series of precautionary measures, there is also concern that could be used to cover political or business crime. A judge decides whether to grant an injunction, struggling to balance public interest against the right to privacy. Whether you do it well is another important part of the debate.
No precautionary measures are applied throughout the world?
Oh, no. And in the era of media globally connected that could be considered largely useless. And it’s not just the big Internet, unruly, where these commands are ignored.
The media in other countries do not have to listen carefully. And it does not openly name people who cannot be named in the UK due to injunctions. The player who is said to have a seven-month romance with Imogen Thomas has been appointed worldwide.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.