Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So what are the rules on Dakka regarding Super Injunctions? You can read who they are all over the web, but I know some sites are sensitive about naming and shaming.

I'm not really the gossiping type, but if somebody pays more money than I earn in a year to hush something up, I suddenly have a compelling urge to ensure as many people know about it as possible. Particularly if the third party gets named in the press, whilst the philanderer gets off scott free (for the time being). In this regard, I'm fairly certain I've got the Premiership footballer who had an affair with Imogen Thomas, but don't want to cause Dakka undue hassle.

Failing that, how about a good old Dakka debate on the subject?

Flashman wrote:So what are the rules on Dakka regarding Super Injunctions?

Posters who have been banned cannot be discussed.

You mean like, rhymes with "Mwar!"

Flashman wrote:So what are the rules on Dakka regarding Super Injunctions?

DCM's can't flaunt out status I.E. I can't tell people about what DCM's get and what they talk about.

Flashman wrote:You mean like, rhymes with "Mwar!"

Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

Flashman wrote:Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

So it's a way of keeping private things... Private?

What has the world come to when we can't keep our secrets and deal with them peacefully?

If I become a DCM will I find out WTF you guys are talking about?

Chowderhead wrote:
So it's a way of keeping private things... Private?

What has the world come to when we can't keep our secrets and deal with them peacefully?

Yes, but to use the example I raised in my OP...

A premiership footballer had an affair with a Big Brother contestant (small beans really, it happens every week). The press find out about it and want to publish the details, so they sound out said footballer prior to publication to make sure they aren't done for libel. The footballer goes to the courts and gags the press from naming him.

Then the press decide to publish the name of the girl he was having an affair with who was apparently quite happy to keep the whole thing a secret. So... she gets dragged through the mud and he doesn't because he can afford the legal process and she can't. Sound fair?

Plus, what if it was genuinely in the public interest to know something, yet somebody was able to hush it up because of the legal precedent set by bloody premiership footballers?

Who on earth really cares about celebs that much that they need to poke into their lives and ruin marriages that could have bounced back from adultery?

Flashman wrote:Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

That doesn't work in the US.

Frazzled wrote:

Flashman wrote:Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

That doesn't work in the US.

Because you don't have to vie for airtime with the royal wedding, or for some other reason?

Because the concept doesn't exist. You can sue for libel or slander, but truth is a defense.

Mannahnin wrote:Because the concept doesn't exist. You can sue for libel or slander, but truth is a defense.

That's exactly how it works here in civil cases.

Though this seems different from what Flashman is talking about. An injunction that shuts up the press completely, even if it's true? Sure I'm uncomfortable with some of the rubbish that is reported, but this sounds like a dangerous precedent.

As far as it pertains to Dakka, is this site considered a media outlet as described in the court? I sincerely doubt it.

Flashman wrote:Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

Andrew Marr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Marr Has taken out a Super Injunction to protect his family after an affair but he recently revealed its existence because it doesn't sit happily with his chosen role as journalist and a broadcaster. he took it out to aid his family in being allowed to work things out in private.

I think that the real reason Super Injunctions are news is because the press are narked they cannot get to sell more copies of their papers or get more viewers hooked with some juicy tidbits.
Freedom of Speech comes a distant second to the riches that can be gleaned from a Rooney or Beckham type expose. They know that the unwashed masses think they have rights over anyone in the public eye and are keen to milk it for as long as they can.

Some super injunctions are used to cover up things in people's personal lives like whatever various footballers have been up to.

But there are more serious cases, like the legal firm Carter Ruck trying to help oil company Trafigura effectively cover up an internal report into a toxic waste dump scandal. The super injunction was hidden until mentioned in parliamentary questions at which point Carter Ruck attempted to prevent the Guardian reporting on the questions raised in the house. Which was frankly outrageous. If they had been successful it would mean that a question raised in the house of commons would be in the records for everyone to see should they did around to look on the parliamentary minutes, but no one in the media would be allowed to quote it or report on it thus preventing the vast majority of people knowing about it.

That didn't work out for Trafigura, but outside of footballers wanting to hide their affairs super injunctions are being used by the rich and powerful to enforce legalised cover ups.

Flashman wrote:Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

As the Sun would say: WE DA PEOPLE, DEEERP, DESERVE TO KNOW.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Some super injunctions are used to cover up things in people's personal lives like whatever various footballers have been up to.

But there are more serious cases, like the legal firm Carter Ruck trying to help oil company Trafigura effectively cover up an internal report into a toxic waste dump scandal. The super injunction was hidden until mentioned in parliamentary questions at which point Carter Ruck attempted to prevent the Guardian reporting on the questions raised in the house. Which was frankly outrageous. If they had been successful it would mean that a question raised in the house of commons would be in the records for everyone to see should they did around to look on the parliamentary minutes, but no one in the media would be allowed to quote it or report on it thus preventing the vast majority of people knowing about it.

That didn't work out for Trafigura, but outside of footballers wanting to hide their affairs super injunctions are being used by the rich and powerful to enforce legalised cover ups.

This is the kind of issue that I think the whole situation is aimed at, rather than "What do you mean you have heard about the fact that I dipped my pen in company ink even though I am married with kids? DEPLOY SUPER INJUNCTION!".

Although obviously SI's could potentially help protect rich scum from the consequences of their actions, whilst allowing those who cannot afford such "protection" to be targeted and dragged through the mud.

That Imogen Thomas is a bit of a dirty.

Just do a Google search for it - apparently Yahoo answers has the, errr, answer!

The internet is not subject to UK gagging orders, I would suggest.

Flashman wrote:Hmm, a little clarification may be needed...

In the UK, one of the hot topics of the moment (well, not that hot... fighting for air time with the Royal Wedding is murder) are Super Injunctions.

These are when a well known public figure has done something they'd rather the wider world didn't know about and goes to the courts to get an injunction to gag the press from publishing the details. Super Injunctions are essentially when the press are gagged for an indefinite period of time.

Needless to say, this is causing some debate. On the one hand, private affairs should really be that, but should they be kept private at the expense of freedom of speech? And in the world of freely available information via the internet, are they even that relevant anyway? i.e. the identity of these individuals can found quite easily if you know where to look.

This is why we're having trouble understanding you, I am from the land of the free where the press get's to ruin lives and print whatever they want whenever they want and it has always been thay way here in US. Thus I have never even heard of a super injunction before.

Come to think of it, Charlie Brooker did a nice bit about super injunctions with that one footballer captain and that Italian (?) trainer of his.

Chowderhead wrote:

Flashman wrote:So what are the rules on Dakka regarding Super Injunctions?

DCM's can't flaunt out status I.E. I can't tell people about what DCM's get and what they talk about.

The first rule about fight club... is we don't talk about fight club