now we will see how the media decides what is law and what isn't.

I don't think many people really see what has gone on here.

Superinjunctions - I'm thinking of taking one out FORCING the media to publish public interest stories about me - like the brilliant new movie Me Me Me and the past artistic triumph of Vile Pervert; The Musical (over 60,000 full length views in 3 years; ignored by the mainstream media - why?).

veritas wrote:
now we will see how the media decides what is law and what isn't.

I don't think many people really see what has gone on here.

If you were really as clever as you seem to think you are, you wouldn't be stuck in Australia.

Cameron..what a dill.

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8...able-and-unfair.html

'super-injunctions' is a media invented term. Cameron is saying in this piece that Parliament makes the laws.
So it does. And judges deliver the law.

Cameron has gone into bat for the tabloids.

Instead of saying that Twitter and the idiots who break the law should pull their heads in and obey the law-the Prime Minister is saying that because twitter breaks the law, the law should be changed.

Hugh Jampton wrote:
veritas wrote:
now we will see how the media decides what is law and what isn't.

I don't think many people really see what has gone on here.

If you were really as clever as you seem to think you are, you wouldn't be stuck in Australia.

we are allowed to leave you know Mr Jampton.

No Accounting For Taste indeed.

is there a full moon on that side of the planet ?

veritas wrote:
Instead of saying that Twitter and the idiots who break the law should pull their heads in and obey the law-the Prime Minister is saying that because twitter breaks the law, the law should be changed.

Simply being pragmatic, veritas.

The UK Courts only cover the UK (exc Scotland) ... its simply ludicrous that this name can be announced in Scotland but not in England. What if I popped over the border to buy a copy of the Sunday Herald?

A journo could broadcast the name from France, and as he's outside UK jurisdiction - nothing could be done about it.

Similarly, Twitter is USA-based ... they can simply ignore the UK Courts (and what would happen to their relationship with their customers if they didn't) ?

Now then posters .... remind me of a similar scenario (25 years ago?) when the UK Gov tried to ban publication of a book (on "security grounds"), but the writer simply went to Australia and published it there (whereupon the media printed the highlights !)

I think the book was called something like Spy Catcher - but can't remember who wrote it ? (It annoyed the hell out of Maggie, though !)

what a hoot..the Prime Minister has basically encouraged a half-wit MP to breach the law.

The chief law-maker has encouraged law-breaking.

It's a farce. It's a constitutional crisis courtesy of the tabloids.

Parliamentary Privilege..destroyed because a tabloid wants a name.

now it gets really interesting..it's like a Judge John Deeds episode

Peter Wright ITK?

an intersting concept ITK..the laws of France should influence the laws of the UK.

Perhaps French libel laws should be adopted also..where a person's private life is protected and even the dead can be libelled.

The idea that Twitter, facebook etc is headquartered in the USA is nonsense although they try it on. They operate in every country but in Brazil. Aust, Italy, Finland and Canada they have all been sued under local laws for libel and ordered to pay damages.

It gets more complicated. In South Australia the only state that still has criminal libel on it's books a young man was convicted over a facebook posting.

None of these payouts were much..around 5 grand tops but imagine the floodgates once an enterprising law firm gets it together for a class action.

Also refer here to the ground-breaking net libel case won by a diamond merchant in Melbourne against Dow Jones published in the USA. The payout was about £250K.

The fact the injunction (and the 'super' part is a gross media beat-up)didn't cover Scotland (if true)is the fault of either the client of the law firm who should have advised as much.

Most fascinating though as to who will win this. The judges or the politicians.

The citizen has already lost..the media overall winners as they bent Parliament to their will.

## fascinating intrerview on BBC world radio yestereday with top Wall Street broker who scoffed at Twitter, facebook and all other social media reported values in the endless $$billions. Asked why he was thinking of investing he said.."riding the boom to the top of course and will get out with a huge profit before the bubble bursts"

Thanks JK and DJones - its all coming back to me now (they said dimentia would start slowly !)

veritas wrote:
an intersting concept ITK..the laws of France should influence the laws of the UK.

Perhaps French libel laws should be adopted also..where a person's private life is protected and even the dead can be libelled.

==

Most fascinating though as to who will win this. The judges or the politicians.

The citizen has already lost..the media overall winners as they bent Parliament to their will.

Veritas - I didn't say that French law should influence UK law - I merely pointed out that we dont have the right to impress OUR laws on other countries.

The current situation is quite ludicrous ... but whose fault is that?

The newspaper obviously wants a return - having presumably paid for the story. Personally I wouldn't bother to read it (unless paid!) - but you cant legislate for taste !

I've not time for Giggs - or any other overpaid footballer - but (I'm speaking generally here - and not specifically about this case) is it right that someone should sleep with someone and then sell the story to the press? Isnt that a kind of blackmail?

There is NO public interest in stories like this except for the gutter press and their salacious readers. In that respect I feel some kind of (qualified) privacy law is needed to stop this happening again.

In The Know wrote:
veritas wrote:
an intersting concept ITK..the laws of France should influence the laws of the UK.

Perhaps French libel laws should be adopted also..where a person's private life is protected and even the dead can be libelled.

==

Most fascinating though as to who will win this. The judges or the politicians.

The citizen has already lost..the media overall winners as they bent Parliament to their will.


I've not time for Giggs - or any other overpaid footballer - but (I'm speaking generally here - and not specifically about this case) is it right that someone should sleep with someone and then sell the story to the press? Isnt that a kind of blackmail?


I agree but, should it be illegal to talk about what happened? Whether its in the public interest is irrelevant.

no I get what you are saying ITK (I've still reserved a bed for you at the Re-Education Camp) but I reckon a lot of people will have egg on their faces over this including what appear to be two complete twits running the country (Cameron etc)

Taking on the combined weight of judges and challenging them will end in tears.

The idiot who revealed his name in parliament has trashed the very important concept of Parliamentary Privilege.

For it to be used in this manner to reveal tittle tattle just reflects on the ghastly standard of today's politicians.

I can't wait for the 4 'celebrities' who revealed the name on the twitter to face the courts as well..sad because I am very fond of Boy George but what a goose he can be at times.

You are of course wrong though..laws in other countries ARE impressed upon others in many many situations..it isn't a 'global village' or new world order yet.

ultimately-the media will win this one. The stage has now been set for internet controls...not that the net can be controlled but it will be by imposing stricter penalties for libel , breaching court orders etc.

people have taken to the internet like kids in a candy store and as most people have questionable intelligence they have set the stage for control to be imposed upon them.

angel wrote:
I agree but, should it be illegal to talk about what happened? Whether its in the public interest is irrelevant.

Interesting point, angel (one I shall have to think about).

We are ALL guaranteed privacy under the Human Rights Act ... let's not talk about this case but generalise ....

Why should a man's wife and kids suffer humiliation, embarrassment and publicity etc, simply because their father can't keep his trousers zipped?
And why should a slapper profit from all this?

veritas wrote:
ultimately-the media will win this one. The stage has now been set for internet controls...not that the net can be controlled but it will be by imposing stricter penalties for libel , breaching court orders etc.

people have taken to the internet like kids in a candy store and as most people have questionable intelligence they have set the stage for control to be imposed upon them.

I think they have won already !
If this had simply been printed last week we would not all still be talking about it a week later ! It would have been fish-and-chip paper the following day. As I never buy The Sun - I would probably never have been aware of the story (and couldn't care less anyway !).

How do you balance "freedom of speech" with a "right to privacy" ?
I think the Judges have done reasonably well with the powers that they had. Other countries (I'm thinking USA / France) which have separate privacy laws dont seem to get into this bother, and still manage to expose bad-uns ! Perhaps their laws make if expedient upon the newspaper to show that such publication really is "in the public interest"?

In The Know wrote:
angel wrote:
I agree but, should it be illegal to talk about what happened? Whether its in the public interest is irrelevant.

Why should a man's wife and kids suffer humiliation, embarrassment and publicity etc, simply because their father can't keep his trousers zipped?


Why should a man's wife not know that her husband has been unfaithful?