4 replies to this topic

[Ali]

[Disclaimer: Brits - I know we're sick of reading about them but I'm interested in the international perspective]

For those of you who don't read international news regularly, the UK is swamped with stories about "super injunctions" at the minute. Open any UK newspaper from the past few weeks and there will almost be a story discussing them.

A super injunction is where an individual can stop a story about them (usually their personal lives) from being published in any media form AND the media are unable to report the existence of the injunction. The current influx of them are actually not true "super" injunctions as we know of their existence but there are a number of details that cannot be published to prevent identification of those involved. So for example, we know that a married premiership footballer has had an affair, we know with who, but she isn't allowed to say and the media can't tell us who he is or what team he plays for etc.

What this has inevitably led to is mass amount of speculation across the internet as to who the parties taking out these injunctions are - with a number of apparently innocent celebrities having to deny allegations that have gathered weight. There being one of the problems with such injunctions, you can't really prove your innocence until someone else admits their guilt.

In the UK, the legal problem is that we adhere to the Human Rights Act. This grants both a right to privacy and a right to freedom of expression and these cases need to balance those rights.

In the US, you're much bigger on your freedom of speech.

So where does everybody draw their lines on this? Should freedom of expression be given more weight, especially considering that innocent people are being caught in the crossfire of this? Should we accept that somebody's extra marital affair is of no public interest and so they should retain their privacy? Or is that just part of what sign up to with fame?

Discuss.

[Ladida]

I really don't care about other people's affairs, as long as those affairs don't bother me. I don't care if someone I don't know is having an affair. I also don't care to read about it in the news either. Lots of people are having affairs, some famous one having a lady on the side doesn't interest me more than the boring people who have ladies on the side. I'm in the minority though, lots of people eat up this sort of water cooler gossip. I don't believe personal stuff should be getting put in print, especially all the speculation stuff. Ruining reputations for the entertainment of others isn't nice *smacks media's knuckles*

[luvsmyncis]

Wow. I wonder what the world would be like if the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal had been supa injunktafied. What would have happened if we didn't find out Tiger Woods was a dog?

I think it's part of the fame process. You want to be super rich and famous and get anything you want, and you want people to take your picture and put you on the cover of the magazines and talk about your new perfume line but you don't want people to talk about how you cheated on your wife? Oh no, only print good things about the celebrity. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways. If you are in the public eye, keep it in your pants unless you want people discussing it.

[Noitidart]

Wow. I wonder what the world would be like if the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal had been supa injunktafied. What would have happened if we didn't find out Tiger Woods was a dog?

For woods same thing if we didn't. Man that guy handled it awesomely.

[mjcm]

There are three tests applied which defines the line between censorship and the freedom of expression. The first one is the dangerous tendency test, the second is the balancing of interest test, and the third one is the clear and present danger test. The first one only censors expression when the acts or words have a great chance of creating future conflicts. The second one is applied more liberally. It seldom censors expression as long as the general public are directly of indirectly affected thereby or as long at the person directed upon is a public figure. A public figure includes any person whose standing in the community is generally looked up. Thus, it includes celebrities, politicians, inventors, etc. The third one, which is the most commonly applied test censors only when, taking into consideration the time and the place, the words and actions will create commotions. Only when either of these three are met when the freedom of expression will be censored.


Also, another twin right to the right of the media is their duty which is called as the "enlightening the public". Thus, they can never be censured and censored when they report anything detrimental to any politician. Yes, it applies only to politicians and not to celebrities. The reason for it is in accordance with the check and balances principle.