Superinjunctions. Why do the papers heed them?

[flobadob]

Why doesn't one of the main newspapers go against a superinjunction to make a point that it is not fair that money can buy the law, even though that appears to be the case? Is it because they are afraid of the repurcussions or do they not actually know the names of the people bringing out the superinjuctions in the first place?

[ABerrant]

A "superinjunction" is a court order. The order begins by warning of the possible penalties for infringing the court order (a contempt of court) - directors of the newspaper (and anybody who knows of the order) could be imprisonment, fined or have their assets seized. There is no specific defence to this kind of contempt of court.

[ABerrant]

*'imprisoned' not 'imprisonment'

[NOX]

Ture Ab but I do see flobadobs point, this is a point of personal freedon of speech and needs to be challanged no matter what. I'd have thought Private Eye would be the ones to do it if anyone does, but they seem a little timid lately only challenging in the courts at the moment.

[ABerrant]

Indeed, but who is going to make that stand and face losing their possessions and liberty on that point of principle.

[jno]

because newspaper editors don't seem to have a taste for going to prison. Neither do AB editors. Why don't you start up your own website and name the guilty men?

[flobadob]

Don't know any guilty men.

[jno]

well, name some innocent ones then. You're going to jail anyway.

[R1Geezer]

well I guess the editors have a keen desire to stay out of her majesty's holiday camps. Maybe one with bottle who doesn't mind being big ron's "special friend" will emerge! Fancy it flobadob

[scotman]

To defeat this type of restriction would require a sustained campaign of disobedience by all the main newspapers and TV channels.
It would have to continue until all people seeking these injunctions realised that giving vast piles of £ to lawyers was not actually achieving anything.
It is likely that by the time this happened quite a few journalists would be in jail and hefty fines paid.
Assuming it did achieve its objective that would not get anyone out of jail or rescind any fines already paid.

[ABerrant]

To clarify a point made by scotman, if a newspaper was to defy the court order and publish injuncted information it would not only be the journalist who faced court sanctions; the newspaper's board of directors, their assets and the assets of the newspaper would all be in peril.

[Hopkirk]

C'mon.

Who are they then?

[tigerlily11]

What is the difference? Does it mean that absolutely nothing can be said about the person in general? Not even a hint? Or just no coverage at all?
And why should it matter if it is some dolly bird just trying to make a few quid on a kiss and tell which means nothing.
But what if it is of national importance about a well known individual that is perhaps representing this country. And I am not talking just royalty here.
Thanks for your time.

[flobadob]

Personally, I don't actually think it is really in anyone's interest to have these kiss and tells really and it will only really affect the people in questions families if the names were divulged. The problem I see is that judges seem to be selling new laws to the highest bidder and that makes me feel uneasy.