Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Super injunctions in the Internet age
IS there any point in individuals taking out so-called "super" injunctions in the age of the internet?
Elsewhere there is currently discussion about a possible super-injunction that may have been taken out to prevent mention of both the purpose of the injunction and the identity of the person having taken it out. (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not encourage direct reference to the particular case).
Individuals who've attempted this in the past seem to have succeeded only in bringing immediate attention to themselves in the non-traditional media.
The logical extension of the scope of the term super injunction, would be to ban the term itself and any discussion of its existence.
How widely known in the public domain does something need to be, before it is pointless for a Court to try to suppress it?
Are such injunctions ever justified? Or are they just a new way and wheeze for the legal profession to extract extra fees from the big-ego-ed, rich and powerful?
Tags for Forum Posts: injunction, super
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Seema Chandwani on
-
I dunno... I always think you and Cllr Stanton could end up taking an injunction out on each other in the next few years ;) x
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Why would I want to do that, Seema? The thoughtful Dr Clive can contribute comments based on facts, careful inquiry, and balanced reflection. For example, the good doctor's inquiry into the activities of Cllr Charles Adje was a model of altruistic public service.
However, it's also true that his alter ego, Mr Carter, can make sweeping angry assertions, apparently fixated on a limited range of topics. Presumably this is caused by reading copious quantities of distilled Daily Mail.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Alan I trust you're less grumpy this week. Each of us is predictable in our own way.
One of your most predictable responses is reflexively to push the "Daily Mail" button as a substitute for argument. The intention appears solely in order to rally those who are fixated by the DM - in ways that I am not at all. My favourite papers are the FT and the Guardian, although the wonderful Stroud Green & Harringay public library also stock several other papers.
Any views on super injunctions, the topic of this thread?
-
Permalink Reply by Julia Bell on
-
They seem utterly pointless to me in the age of the internet - which has already leaked out the names of those involved in this child abuse scandal - which is unravelling faster than my Gran's knitting. Jimmy Savile really is bringing the establishment down with him as he threatened to do in his lifetime. Anyone who doesn't know who the case refers to should Google 'Tory Peadophile' - the names in the frame are consistently the same and have been for years. Any super injunction would whiff of a cover up at this stage and not stop the tsunami of information. In the meanwhile the MP who actually pressed Cameron on the issue is now receiving death threats - worrying, no?
-
-
But Julia, isn't there a very serious problem of sorting truth from rumour? Especially when the internet rapidly amplifies and can appear to validate any number of rumours. Which is why Cass Sunstein's writing seems so important to me. For example On Rumours.
-
-
I would agree up to a point - but one of the good things about the internet in general is that it allows for whistleblowers to, well, blow the whistle and cover ups to be uncovered. Which is different from a bridge in Bhadgdad which was a moment of collective panic. This particular situation has emerged again because there had been a massive cover up. The names involved have been in the frame for years - these are more than just rumours - they are concrete allegations. The fact that govt is having yet another inquiry suggests that this whole abuse issue if predicated on a LOT more than just rumour. And I'm concerned that we still won't get to the truth.
-
-
And, Julia, one of the bad things about the internet is that it lets anyone make allegations about anyone, with or without evidence and usually anonymously. Sometimes these are repeated, it seems endlessly, round websites.
It also seems that the appetite for "celebrity" scandal means national media are really only interested if the "whistle is blown" on someone in the public eye.
Yes there are media reports of other scandals without famous people involved. But these tend to be quickly forgotten. As Professor Peter Beresford points out, there's usually a cycle of "scandal, inquiry and ad hoc action", which is "is a recipe for disaster" in policy development.
On the other hand, Julia, you are right that allegations of substance have frequently been ignored. Commenting on the Jimmy Saville case, Peter also wrote that we have not come far enough "in challenging deference & disempowerment"
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
