Crosswords2 mins 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.
These super injuctions have been taken out not only to cover their wrongdoing but to protect their jobs and future income from their advertising sidelines and promotional videos. I think it is wrong to allow them to cover up, if you have money to gag the press they are in effect living a lie, those young people who idolise these millionaire players are being conned. Liars and cheats in the public eye should be exposed for what they are.
That maybe where the solution lies - proof or even half proof that a story is made up, (and the press have done this to see if there is a fire down there) then folk (all of us) should have the right to an injunction. However, as in this case, there is a story with factual evidence behind it, then yes it should be allowed to run.
the silly thing about superinjunctions, well two silly things, the first is that no central record is kept so even the Master of the Rolls could only say "We think there are only two extant" and the other silly thing is if I don't know about it cos its all kept secret and I post on a website "has anyone heard the goss about x and y" then how can I be in trouble for that if I had no idea that i shouldn't have done it?
JTH, truth is only partly the issue. Do you know for a fact these stories about the footballer are true? How do you know?
Often what's true is quite difficult to determine anyway, and could even be a matter of opinion, e.g. can it be said to be true that a particular act or person is "evil"?
Having taken no interest in the footballer case at all, I couldn't tell you whether it's true or not. Even if I knew it to be true, I couldn't tell you all of the details for a fact. The press prints what people want to read, not necessarily the whole truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this story wasn't true. Bigger stories haven't been.
What our law concerns itself with more is whether something is in the public interest to know, not whether it's true or not. Some parts of the Max Mosley story were lies (e.g. the Nazi allegations). Other parts were true (the S&M acts). That doesn't mean the press had a right to print the true stuff. We didn't have a right to know.
In some instances, though, we do have a right to know. In the article I posted earlier (http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/HumanRightsYour
RightsToPrivacy.html),
its conclusion makes a good job of summarising these instances:
If any person or company is found to be interfering with your right to privacy, they are in breach of the law – unless they can demonstrate the following:
* Their action was in accordance with law – having good legal basis.
* They acted in the interests of the law, national security, health protection, or economic protection of society.
* Their action was ‘necessary’ – it was specifically taken to suit the purpose, and it wasn’t out of proportion (like tapping a telephone line just because someone spent suspiciously long in the staff toilet).
Often what's true is quite difficult to determine anyway, and could even be a matter of opinion, e.g. can it be said to be true that a particular act or person is "evil"?
Having taken no interest in the footballer case at all, I couldn't tell you whether it's true or not. Even if I knew it to be true, I couldn't tell you all of the details for a fact. The press prints what people want to read, not necessarily the whole truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that this story wasn't true. Bigger stories haven't been.
What our law concerns itself with more is whether something is in the public interest to know, not whether it's true or not. Some parts of the Max Mosley story were lies (e.g. the Nazi allegations). Other parts were true (the S&M acts). That doesn't mean the press had a right to print the true stuff. We didn't have a right to know.
In some instances, though, we do have a right to know. In the article I posted earlier (http://www.yourprivacy.co.uk/HumanRightsYour
RightsToPrivacy.html),
its conclusion makes a good job of summarising these instances:
If any person or company is found to be interfering with your right to privacy, they are in breach of the law – unless they can demonstrate the following:
* Their action was in accordance with law – having good legal basis.
* They acted in the interests of the law, national security, health protection, or economic protection of society.
* Their action was ‘necessary’ – it was specifically taken to suit the purpose, and it wasn’t out of proportion (like tapping a telephone line just because someone spent suspiciously long in the staff toilet).
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.