[Closed] A genuine super injunction inquiry...

I was going to ask that. I run a cycle club forum so in theory could find out all of the super injunctions under this guise.

i think the super injunctions only apply to the uk.outside the uk it's fine to print what they want,and they have.i think it was a french paper that named *footballer*,apparently in media circles the names are common knowledge - they just can't print them

sausage, please remove that name...I'm trying not to get this thread closed! I want to know about how STW towers know who we can and can't talk about, NOT WHO it is 🙂

EDIT: that was quick!

It's a valid point. I'm not sure the whole - [i]"You absolutely must not talk about this person, or you'll be in contempt of court", "Which person?", "I can't tell you"[/i] - situation is in the interest of free speech.

Are we basically not allowed to speculate on any kind of tabloid antics of any kind involving anyone at all, just in case they happen to have a superinjunction?

i don't get it - does a super-injunction mean no-one is allowed to speculate with idle chit-chat and gossip about a particular person?

in writing only, i guess?

how is that enforcable? forums are no more than a written conversation and in today's media, have no more worth than a converstaion apart from it being recorded. but still, no more real value or weight.

any legal experts here? just interested.

for what little it's worth, i don't read stuff on twitter or use facebook, i couldn't give a tss what celeb or the 'famous' do, whether they want us to know or not.. it's either serious and newsworthy (ie has an actual effect on us) or it's pointless media drivel. i'm just interested in how something like this prevents people gossiping on a forum of some kind somewhere.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/super-injunctions-2

i'm just interested in how something like this prevents people gossiping on a forum of some kind somewhere

It doesn't - it allows injuctionee [?] to seek redress and have you desist

superinjunctions mean that not only can't you talk about someone but you can't talk about the fact that you can't talk about them.

bar mainstream media I think the publisher is contacted if it's felt a breach has occurred and asked to remove any allegations.

They're not called "super injunctions" for nothing. The whole point of them is that you're not suppose to know who they concern. I think it might even be illegal to think about them, or mention the term "super injunction".

"Singletrack, like any other media outlet, has to conform to the terms of injunctions passed by the high court. If you post anything that runs the risk of breaching any injunction, no matter if breaches have happened elsewhere in the public domain, we will remove your post as soon as we become aware of it."

So does Mark have a list of current injunctions in front of him at all times?
Is the reason the 'footballer' threads have disappeared because we assume all the gossip is true or because STW have definitive proof in the form of contact from a lawyer?

It just fascinates me...!

i read that Dave, thanks, but that's what sparked the question - forum gossip by an individual isn't the same as a paper suggesting something on the front page. Maybe it is now in this case.
So it just gives them the right to sue, and the publisher is liable, in this case you're seen as the publisher. But surely you can't be held responsible for a hidden accusation about this guy that was hidden in another topic? seems a bit much.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the subject when it was on the news a while back, but took a bit more interest knowing it affected something like this site.

edit - Uplink, ta - i suppose the threat of redress is all they can do to try to prevent it.

Are you allowed to mention the word footballer then?

I still don't get it. How does a publisher know who are thay are not meant to talk about?

So are the Super-Injunction Lawers like the thought police? )

i'm off to build a bike and carry on ignoring 'celeb' BS ...

(if this means a whole industry of tabloid gossip-rubbish dies out, leaving the lone, self-published and attention-seeking bleatings of the katonas and jordans to fade to nothing, super injunctions are great.. who cares what people do outside of professional life, rockstars celebrate the coke 'n' hookers life so why not sportsmen..)*

*in no way an implication of any particular sportsman enjoying illicit pleasures of any kind, any how, ever.

It's either total paranoia or maybe a notice comes via the press association

It's a bit like scrolling down the list of new topics on STW. I've got no interest in most of them until I see one has been locked.
I've got no interest in celebrity gossip, but like franksinatra, this has got me wondering how it works.

Supposing I was to say "Footballer A has had an affair with model B" or "Actor C has had an affair with singer D"

How does a publisher know there's a superinjunction on A, so I mustn't mention him, but I can say what I like about B, C & D ?
Is there a master list of superinjunctions that only newspaper editors are issued with ?
Is it also issued to website and forum publishers, or do they have to go on heresay ?

I still don't get it. How does a publisher know who are thay are not meant to talk about?

Obviously you don't get it..........the publisher [u]is not suppose to know[/u] who are they are not meant to talk about. Otherwise it would just be a bog standard ordinary injunction. How difficult is that to understand ? ffs

So, to use my example above, let's say I've heard a rumour from a friend in France, where the UK superinjunction is not enforceable, about footballer A.
I then repeat the rumour here.
How do the STW mods know to remove it ?

What if I was a journalist on a local paper and submitted the story to my editor ? How would he know not to publish it ?

The implications of super-injunctions are starting to scare me a bit.
I can't believe that STW and us as participants/customers who are all bound together by an interest in mountain bikes are being impacted by legal actions by people we've never even met and have no great interest in. That's insane!
It's like we have to self-censor about everything we say about people in the public eye just in case someone we mention (unknown to us and STW) gets STW into legal trouble.
That's clearly an unsustainable situation. It's like we've accidentally created a thought police state, but without an actual head of state trying to control...

No criticism of the STW stance here, more dumbfounded that something apparently unrelated to STW seems to be having such a fundamental impact on the site. I mean, are forum publishers going to start shutting down to avoid putting themselves in the line of fire, totally accidentally?

let's say I've heard a rumour from a friend in France, where the UK superinjunction is not enforceable

They're going to get round that little problem.......they're going to introduce 'global humongous injunctions'. And it will be illegal to have even slightly bad thoughts about the person concerned. But only if they take out an injunction, obviously.

I don't see the point of them. They don't protect the nearest and dearest from their dodgy behaviour, just the great unwashed.

Wayne Rooney has been outed with wrinkly sex professionals a few times, and it soon blows over. Partly because he then does something else more stupid, but that's footballists in a nutshell.

In all honesty I don't get it either.

if the publisher knows that there is a story involving a footballer but not which footballer does this mean that all footballer stories are off limits, what's going to happen to match of the day?

what's going to happen to match of the day?

Regional weather forecast?

If you have a look on caughtoffside.com where they are talking about footballers & superinjunctions they mention the person in question several times in the comments about the article.

How come they are allowed to publish it but STW aren't, & on a slightly different slant, if I mentioned it on my facebook status, or wrote it on someone's wall could I expect a call from a footballers lawyers? Whereas if I text the info to a mate that'd be fine?

Also if I was a Blackpool fan & at Old Trafford tomorrow & joined in certain chants directed at a footballer what would happen then? Would SKY tv or whoever is showing it have to mute the crowd noise?!

Just posting to check I haven't been banned.

Edit: oh, I haven't, good. Thought it would have been a little heavy handed, but wasn't sure after my relatively innocuous threat was pulled.

See what I mean ?
ScottCheg has mentioned a name and it hasn't been deleted.
How does an STW mod or the editor of the Sun know which names to delete ?

I find the paradox amusing. The only reason we can't mention [i]you know who[/i] is because everyone knows who he is.

But surely you can't be held responsible for a hidden accusation about this guy that was hidden in another topic? seems a bit much.

it is hardly hidden though is it not exactly rocket science to work out what people were intimating at which seems pointless s everyone knows his name anyway. BBC radio 4 mentioned his first name today by error
From what little I know othe media has no interest in anything noble here. In the case of the footballer the sun has challenged every legal case on the grounds that it is in the public domain [ NOT PUBLIC INTEREST]. Given their news organisation is currently going to court for breaching people's privacy via illegal phone tapping it is is not inconceivable that they have actually been leaking the information themselves.
They have never once claimed that it is in the public interest to publish this which speaks volumes about their motives and our right to know.
Whatever we think about our right to know [ to be honest why does anyone care who sleeps with who] would anyone here, with kids and family, actually want that stuff printed in the national papers. it is not about our freedom to know v state censorship of the media IMHO.
So in the week that news international are in court for illegal phone tapping, have been charged with contempt of court {treatment of the landlord in the bristol murder] we are meant to think this fine and noble organisation is all about protecting freedom and upholding a fine tradition of investigative journalism
My arse
I suspect a list is sent to media outlets especially papers i doubt they send it to STW but it would be hard for STW to deny they know of the ban now

How come they are allowed to publish it but STW aren't

My guess is that nobody really understands the law, so some play it safe and some take a chance.

Edit, the post I was replying to has been deleted, presumably because it mentioned another site where a name has been published.

I don't see the point of them. They don't protect the nearest and dearest from their dodgy behaviour, just the great unwashed.

I don't think that is the point tbh.
These are people who've done something they don't want other people to know about - usually something nefarious or illegal if you look at cases so far. It's not their nearest and dearest they're worried about (otherwise they wouldn't have been having an affair in the first place!) It's their public image, which affects their career and income stream... that they're trying to protect...

Look if you guys are really bothered about super injunctions, then the best solution is to gossip about someone who hasn't taken out a super injunction.

It's their public image, which affects their career and income stream... that they're trying to protect...

I think it might by the impact in their kids that is the main issue here rather than the impact on their wallet. The football player will get through this and still be a multi millionairre.
I assume we have all done stuff we would rather not get published in the national press or have to discuss with our kids
Everyone is entitled to a private life and why do we have a right to know x slept with y.
Given about 35% of married folk have affairs at some point it is hardly news...do we have the right to know about all our friends as well or just famous strangers?
efore someone says it he plays footy and he hardly courts publicity like say a Jordan who may have much less of a claim to privacy.

I've heard a rumour about a famous trailquester and his three in a bed romps with Felicity Kendall and Kate Bush.
It hasn't been in the papers, therefore there must be a superinjunction in force, therefore it must be true.

I predict this will go the same way as illegal downloading and record companies. They brought the lawyers in to stop something happening that they didn't like and then realised because so many people were doing it, they couldn't stop it happening and gave up fighting.
There aren't enough lawyers in the world to keep up with the number of people downloading illegally.

Equally, there are too many people communicating online and too many places to publish for the lawyers to keep up with, which means in practice the super injunctions won't actually be able to enforce any kind of silence... it would be like trying to pick up each individual grain of salt piece by piece after you dropped the whole bag on the floor...

I've heard a rumour about a famous trailquester and his three in a bed romps with Felicity Kendall and Kate Bush.
It hasn't been in the papers, therefore there must be a superinjunction in force, therefore it must be true.

Not been deleted yet, so I guess it's just wishful thinking.

Anyway, shouldn't he be out filling that trench before the weather turns?

Don't know why we need superinjunctions.

Everyone knows footballers love tangerine tarts...

he plays footy and he hardly courts publicity

Who does? Michael Owen?

The thing is about this, if it did all come out in the press there'd be a couple weeks of it, then it'd blow over pretty quick, but trying to cover it up makes everyone want to know & gossip about it.

I think it's best to just close the forum, just in case like, #superinjunction

By the way, can I say that, or is there a superinjunction preventing me from talking about superinjunctions? #superinjunction?

[img]

Equally, there are too many people communicating online and too many places to publish for the lawyers to keep up with, which means in practice the super injunctions won't actually be able to enforce any kind of silence..

probably true but it requires someone within the media profession to break the law to get it out there [ suppose legal bod could do this as well but doubt they would risk it
Do you think the media bods will be publishing lists of journalists who had extra- marital affairs or who do drugs whilst their papers rant about it or will they just expose other peoples hypocrisy?

Well one issue with the most talked about super injunction is the woman involved is prohibited from responding to criticisms about her in the press because she's not allowed to talk about the events covered by the superinjunction. The fact that it's on websites all over the world (not just twitter) notwithstanding, surely gagging one party to a level that damages HER ability to live a private life (admittedly a big bro contestant can't really be that keen on privacy) because of someone elses wish for privacy is a mental thing for a judge to decide.

Of course the whole issue would be sidestepped if prominent people could keep it in their pants, particularly with tabloid fodder ladies.

How do you damage the privacy of someone who sold a story about her alleged affair to a newspaper? I think when you go on BB then do that you cannot use a privacy defence with any form of credibility.

Of course the whole issue would be sidestepped if prominent people could keep it in their pants, particularly with tabloid fodder ladies.

or by the newspaper not publishing these stories, not paying these girls[or men if the case arises] for their stories or the public not buying the papers.I doubt anyone is pro infidelity but do we have the right to do this to every person who is unfaithful? WHY? why do we have the right to know this it is hardly national security and even the newspaper has not argued a public interest case in court in the issue

Do you think the media bods will be publishing lists of journalists who had extra- marital affairs or who do drugs whilst their papers rant about it or will they just expose other peoples hypocrisy?

Have a look at the regular "Street of Shame" section on Private Eye. 😉

bit niche [ thinking of subscribing actually is it worth Graham?]though and they dont report it in the tabloid press do they