Foreign Office Asks Public Schools For...
News1 min ago
Privacy, injunctions etc
The recent superinjunction hoohar has got me thinking.
These men have got their injunctions because they have money.
If my wife were to try and sell her story to those cheap magazines or go on Jeremy Kyle - the headline something like 'Wedding night shock - I married the man with the biggest penis' or 'I caught my husband wearing my dresses and makeup!' could I, with my modest means, seek legal action to stop this getting in to the media?
After all, some of the revelations in those mags and Kyle could seriously impact on a person's job.
These men have got their injunctions because they have money.
If my wife were to try and sell her story to those cheap magazines or go on Jeremy Kyle - the headline something like 'Wedding night shock - I married the man with the biggest penis' or 'I caught my husband wearing my dresses and makeup!' could I, with my modest means, seek legal action to stop this getting in to the media?
After all, some of the revelations in those mags and Kyle could seriously impact on a person's job.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by hc4361. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Short answer no - In Libel/slander cases its up to the plaintiff to prove that what has been written is wrong not the defendant to prove they are right.
Newspapers have large amounts of money and could out spend you to the point of your bankrupcy.
You may be entirely in the right but getting judgement unless you are rich is neigh on impossible.
Newspapers have large amounts of money and could out spend you to the point of your bankrupcy.
You may be entirely in the right but getting judgement unless you are rich is neigh on impossible.
I know there is no chance of legal aid, or no win no fee (that only seems to apply when the defendant is backed by insurance).
This wouldn't necessarily be libel or slander. It would be simply to protect privacy in an intensely private matter.
So it seems anyone can sell their trashy story for a couple of hundred quid and the object of the derision/hatred/scandal can do little or nothing about it unless they have pots of money.
Unfair!
This wouldn't necessarily be libel or slander. It would be simply to protect privacy in an intensely private matter.
So it seems anyone can sell their trashy story for a couple of hundred quid and the object of the derision/hatred/scandal can do little or nothing about it unless they have pots of money.
Unfair!
No win no fee is NOT necessarily backed by insurance. The biggest case I ever did I did was on a no win no fee basis and there was no insurance back up.
I suspect that for the sort of article you are talking about, the costs would not be quite so high. The defendant would also have a harder time arguing that it was "in the public interest".
I suspect that for the sort of article you are talking about, the costs would not be quite so high. The defendant would also have a harder time arguing that it was "in the public interest".
> Why should a person with money be more entitled to privacy than somebody without ...
Why should they be more entitled to big houses and nice cars? It's because they have the money ...
That and the fact that we live in a society that has some respect for people's privacy. Tiger Woods, for example, does not live in such a society.
What's your real issue? That there are privacy laws at all, or that only some poeple can afford to make use of them? :)
Why should they be more entitled to big houses and nice cars? It's because they have the money ...
That and the fact that we live in a society that has some respect for people's privacy. Tiger Woods, for example, does not live in such a society.
What's your real issue? That there are privacy laws at all, or that only some poeple can afford to make use of them? :)
I don't have any real issue about it - I was just thinking about the different aspects.
If a certain footballer hadn't applied for the injunction then the whole thing would have blown over by now - after all, he isn't the only married person to have gone astray.
I do have a loathing of those magazines and programmes like Kyle though.
If a certain footballer hadn't applied for the injunction then the whole thing would have blown over by now - after all, he isn't the only married person to have gone astray.
I do have a loathing of those magazines and programmes like Kyle though.
No it's not fair; they should have been born with the sense not to do things they felt would embarass them in the first place. Life's so unfair. It's also unfair that the system allows some to find a niche where they can attract loads of our wealth for their own use despite not having half the worth of some who are forever giving of themselves to the community. It is all so unfair.
> I do have a loathing of those magazines and programmes like Kyle though.
Yes, so do I. I don't even like gossip over the fence, and this is it on a grand scale ...
The problem we have when super-injunctions meets social media is that you can't serve a super-injunction on social media, because social media is individual people. You'd have to tell every single person on that channel (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) that they weren't allowed to mention something and, of course, you'd have to tell them what they weren't allowed to mention - which kind of defeats the point ...
But you have to wonder how these stories get onto Twitter in the first place, since the average person in the street doesn't find out about this stuff. Where's the source?
There's a clear strategy here for newspapers to destroy any kind of privacy laws so they can sell more newspapers. The strategy goes: find out some dirty gossip; leak it onto Twitter; force it to go viral using their network and PR skill; then claim that enough people know about it for them to publish it now; finally, publish the dirty gossip mixed with some sanctimonious tosh about freedom of speech and public interest for good measure ...
> No it's not fair; they should have been born with the sense not to do things they felt would embarass them in the first place
There's a difference between facts and gossip. There's also a difference, even once the facts are established, between what's in the public interest and what isn't. It's established in the Univeral Declaration on Human Rights (and in EU and UK law) that all humans have an essential right to dignity and privacy. This is a good short article on the topic, IMO:
http://www.yourprivac...rRightsToPrivacy.html
Yes, so do I. I don't even like gossip over the fence, and this is it on a grand scale ...
The problem we have when super-injunctions meets social media is that you can't serve a super-injunction on social media, because social media is individual people. You'd have to tell every single person on that channel (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) that they weren't allowed to mention something and, of course, you'd have to tell them what they weren't allowed to mention - which kind of defeats the point ...
But you have to wonder how these stories get onto Twitter in the first place, since the average person in the street doesn't find out about this stuff. Where's the source?
There's a clear strategy here for newspapers to destroy any kind of privacy laws so they can sell more newspapers. The strategy goes: find out some dirty gossip; leak it onto Twitter; force it to go viral using their network and PR skill; then claim that enough people know about it for them to publish it now; finally, publish the dirty gossip mixed with some sanctimonious tosh about freedom of speech and public interest for good measure ...
> No it's not fair; they should have been born with the sense not to do things they felt would embarass them in the first place
There's a difference between facts and gossip. There's also a difference, even once the facts are established, between what's in the public interest and what isn't. It's established in the Univeral Declaration on Human Rights (and in EU and UK law) that all humans have an essential right to dignity and privacy. This is a good short article on the topic, IMO:
http://www.yourprivac...rRightsToPrivacy.html
-- answer removed --
Unfortunately, my family appeared in one of these magazines in a story submitted by a third party.
We were given no 'right-of-reply' and the person concerned pushed copies of the magazine through every door in in the street, too. It then made it into the local paper and one of the 'dailies' sent a photographer round..............he rang the doorbell but when no answer was forthcoming he sat in his car for hours. Luckily, for us, a local bobby sent him away with a flea in his ear..........
It was a truly horrible and distressing time for us.
We were given no 'right-of-reply' and the person concerned pushed copies of the magazine through every door in in the street, too. It then made it into the local paper and one of the 'dailies' sent a photographer round..............he rang the doorbell but when no answer was forthcoming he sat in his car for hours. Luckily, for us, a local bobby sent him away with a flea in his ear..........
It was a truly horrible and distressing time for us.
Fortunately (I'm not convinced that is in any way the correct word), we approached a 'daily newspaper' and got 'our' side printed..........it went a little way to mitigating the original one-sided story.......but in reality meant that so many more people were made aware of that particular basket of dirty laundry. :o(
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Animals & Nature3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.