Forum menu
Im with the OP. If there is a super injunction the media cant tell us who it is, therefore how do we know who we're not allowed to mention.
What if I made an accurate guess, have I broken some rule by being a good guesser?
Junkyard, I subscribe and it's well worth it. It's the only genuinely politically neutral "newspaper" out there.
And, to go some way to answering my own question earlier.
[b]6[/b] Number of superinjunctions revealed on Twitter last week, with incorrect details
[b]53[/b] Number of superinjunctions and anonymised privacy injunctions which Private Eye is aware of
There's a bit more about superinjunctions here.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame&issue=1287
And before the mods get too worried about me posting external links in this thread, this is all stuff that has appeared in print in a national UK publication.
For those who can't understand all the fuss over celebrity tittle tattle, there are also superinjunctions covering;
Financial arrangements made by the chief executive of another global company while it was experiencing widely reported problems.
“Private information” that MoD adviser Bernard Gray – since appointed to the position of Chief of Defence Materiel – communicated to an individual, or who exactly that individual was.
So no one knows who or what can't be said?
So if I make a joke about a footballer 'being good at playing away' and 'scoring lots' and pluck a name out of thin air could I get in trouble?
I hear Kevin Nolan* has played away lots this year and has scored lots.
Do STW (or anyone else for that matter) know if I've broken a super injunction with a poor football-terminology based quip? And how do they not know? Will it be deleted on the off chance?
It still amazes me...
*fairly sure he's happily married (so it's all probably true... ;-))
The issue we have is that we are the publisher of this forum. That means that anything that appears on this forum is deemed to have been published by us and as such we are responsible for everything that is posted. When someone posts something libellous for example then it is STW that is considered to have published the libel.
We may be just a bike forum but with over 600,000 unique users a month we pop up on some surprisingly mainstream 'radars' and I DO get several litigious sounding communications a month that always require careful handling.
In practice we should be ok so long as we can show that we took reasonable and rapid action to tackle any issues once we were made aware of them. It's not the mere appearance of litigious comments that would land us in trouble but rather the fact we didn't act to mitigate the issue once we have been made aware of it's existence.
The fact Im monitoring the forum from the middle of Dalby Forest and have unfortunately had to ban several users this morning is a sign of how seriously we have to take this stuff. We may have hundreds of thousands of site users every month but we aren't big enough to afford a big legal team to help dig us out of holes we've been put in by forum users, and so we moderate.
Not that we just roll over. I've actually said the words, "see you in court then" on at least a couple of occasions but ultimately our moderation policies on stuff like this are pragmatic and the amount of time I want to spend arguing legalities with disgruntled individuals is a consideration.
...and I DO get several litigious sounding communications a month...
Now that's got me even more intrigued.
Continental got a bit of a slating recently and the quality of Crank Brothers' products is regularly discussed negatively.
Do manufacturers try to get threads deleted ? Go on, tell us who we've upset.
The big boys going after small fry is nothing new, eg. the McLibel case
.......the McDonald's Corporation v Helen Steel and David Morris.
This is a bit different though if it is manufacturers. There's an interdependence between magazines and manufacturers. I would imagine both parties would rather settle any dispute amicably than go to court.
I appreciate your reply from the depths of a forest Mark!
How would you or I know when we have talked about a person or incident that is covered by an injunction?
Have you had official word that the footballer we 'think' we can't name IS the footballer we can't name?
And if not, then how do you know which internet rumours to believe and act on?
best deleted 😀
I can't remember the last time I was threatened legally by someone in the industry... Actually I can. It was superstar components.. :-). But no.. The industry is the last place legal nonsense comes from. It's more likely to be an electricity company who doesn't like the fact a users comments on their shoddy customer service have appeared in their google results.
The current injunction that has been discussed is almost entirely in the public domain now. This has a number of implications. Firstly the fact it's almost public knowledge means a defence of 'but I didn't know!' is a bit risky. Secondly, despite the info being pretty much in the public domain that doesn't negate the actual terms of the injunction until a judge lifts it.
Any other injunction we wouldn't know about until it was breached, in which case we would be made aware of it by legal representatives of those involved. Once we have been made aware of it we would then have to ensure that no further breaches took place. It gets a bit scary and daft at that point because we clearly can't tell you openly not to post about X without breaching the injunction.
Its all stupid 🙂
P
Did you reply with an octopus giving him a rude gesture? 😆
The interesting thing is that sites like Twitter and Facebook are blurring the boundaries of what's idle conversation with friends, and what's 'publishing'. Suing someone for telling a friend in person that they heard it was x wot done it is ludicrous, and this is the issue potentially faced with Twitter and the like.
Another interesting point I read is that Twitter doesn't actually have an office in the UK, so may not be particularly bothered by all these shenanigans. Although, taking it to extremes, you do start to wonder whether there is a future where Twitter is banned in the UK.
Or perhaps it will be taken as an example of why superinjunctions are a ****ing joke. "I did this thing, but you sure as hell can't tell anyone"
I expect this thread to be closed soon too, simply because it's too risky to be seen to publishing anything that might mention names. Which is fair enough - it's not like Mark et al really want to get themselves caught in the middle of this guff.
you are right but remember the media can only overturn this by proving it is in the public domain and therefore pointless to keep it private. Where do you think this information is coming from they are almost certainly responsible for the leaking?
there is a difference between you and I discussing something in the pub and you and I discussing something on here where anyone can read it
not sure they are a joke just this one there are many other where we have no idea who or what they are about so they do seem to work except when somone who sells a sex story is gagged and has a media consultant and appears in the papers everyday going on about it etc.
Here's a scenario:
Said footballer turns out for his club at an away game against one of their bitter rivals, 20 to 30,000 fans of the home club all start chanting at said footballer & giving him lots of stick regarding his 'activities'....
It's bound to happen!
Cheers Mark, I guess that makes it clearer.
I wonder how much people get paid to sift through the internet for references to their clients??
oh well suppose I shouldnt
I wonder how much people get paid to sift through the internet for references to their clients??
Tip-offs from disgruntled banned STWers I suspect.
That RudeFredBoy geezer always struck me as a grass who bore a grudge 💡
The wendyballer has already threatened to sue Twitter, which should be interesting as their head office is in San Fransisco, and free speech is part of the US Constitution, so good luck with that one, squire. On a more disturbing note, a senior legal figure is seriously talking about using the law to control the Internet, which brings us horribly close to countries like China, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc, in attempting to censor the 'net. Bloody judges are getting out of control, they are even talking about removing Parlimentary Privilege, FFS!
i think you are getting a bit carried away ...the judges said parliament should respect the law - what with the law being one of the checks on the powers of parliament - they make the law someone else implements it. It something that differentiates democracies from the countries you mention
they are not trying to remove parlimanetary privledge
It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.
"But you do need to think, do you not, whether it's a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.
Judge Judge - what a name
Why would you want an MP who breaks the law? they do this it is just not admissible in a court.
I am not sure why the net should be some sort of lawless area unaffected by the laws where anyone can say/do anything they want without impunity or consequences. At an extreme you get terrorist sites - terrorist handbook for example, suicide sites, instructions on bomb making and hacking , child pornography etc. It is not all free speech and copyright infringement.
They are not suing twitter they want the details of the poster. It is not the same thing. They think the person should be held accountable for the things they posted.
it is not inconceivable that it was posted by a sun journalist or even the lady concerned
It is an interesting issue but I am not sure why we seem to think the natural state for the web is unhindered free speech when we dont have it anywhere else.
What happened about the ranting homo(phobic) distributor who looked like a Bavarian pron star and was an utter tool?
what i also wonder is where do things have to be, if a french website publishes a story then it doesn't breach the injunction, but what about a french website hosted on British servers?
A super injunction as i understand it means you are not allowed to talk about the existence of an injunction.
anyway what we need to do is introduce Newspeak, should help to control this dodgy behaviour.
Apparently these super injunctions don't apply in Scotland!
Super injunctions are very confusing. Thee BBC can't say who it is (even though they know) but they can report that the information is available at another media source (and they name it on the news every half hour).
Surely that would go against the terms of the initial gagging order?!
I heard them described elsewhere as trying to diffuse a bomb by punching it.
Apparently these super injunctions don't apply in Scotland!
Correct, there was someone talking on Radio Scotland about it the other day. They said a superinjunction taken out in a court in England wouldn't apply in Scotland as it's a different legal system. Anyone seeking a superinjunction would have to apply for an interdict up here. They also stated that the media in Scotland have followed any superinjunctions brought about in England though and no attempt, at the time of that broadcast, had been made to challenge that.
and a certain scottish newspaper, i assume to mention the name is to break the injunction? has apparently published details, but it seems their website is down? Coincidence?
So when's STW going to move it's servers to Scotland then?
Kelvin McKenzie sounds like a Scottish name too 🙂
As far as I can tell * ** is sueing twitter for allowing his name to leak out, breaching the gagging order. if you Google 'named footballer Imogen Thomas', fourth hit for wakeywakeynews clearly shows * ** name, but the site itself has been shut down. Horse/stable door? There's a Twitter quote from a famous celebrity #Saving**Privates(**) Ha! on page 9 of The MoS. If it's that clear on the web and in a national newspaper, then the whole thing is truly farcical.
it is a farce, google Wikipedia and CTB.
and a certain scottish newspaper, i assume to mention the name is to break the injunction? has apparently published details, but it seems their website is down? Coincidence?
although I suppose if you were to google the name of "The Scottish Paper" and the word Twitpic...
mrmo - Member
it is a farce
Amen.
This is all getting rather pathetic. You simply can't put the cat back in the bag, nor can you deny that it's pi55ing all over the carpets everywhere.
Published up here because the paper in question suggests that the libel laws will not stand up in Scotland.I assume they took advice first, a LOT of advice.
but who let it out the bag?
This argument that it is out there so lets talk/publish it is EXACTLY what News International argued in court and lets be honest who knew anything about it before the media started reporting about this?
Whether I support them or not it is an example of the media [IMHO] disregarding the law for a the less than noble ideal of selling you sex story for money. This is not a right I feel particularly fired up about supporting nor do I feel protected from intrusion or better able to go about my [ private ] business as a citizen as a result of this.
Who let it out of the bag? i found out about a month-6 weeks ago from someone. It was widely known in the media, they were just not meant to say anything.
My gut feeling is someone in the media knowingly leaked details, it could have been this case or a different case but this was going to happen eventually as the law is being shown to be farcical.