- 20,685
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The Sunday Herald took a bold decision yesterday and published a picture that they say shows the footballer at the center of the latest super-injunction row.
Why am I interested? I don't really like soccerball much but the issues raised by the whole super-injunction thing go much much deeper than shivering memories of secondary school disappointments.
Well, one simple reason - this is the first big case in the UK that could shape the real future of how we share (or how we're allowed to share) information on the internet. That affects all of us whether we realise it or not.
CTB (depicted as one Mr. Ryan Giggs by the Herald) had, it is alleged, an affair with ex-BB-housemate and celebrity slapper Imogen 'Theres No Heaven' Thomas - aged 28 or 12 depending on how you average her body parts.
CTB toddled off to the High Court and took out an injunction so great that it became Super - its existence couldn't even be reported... and it duly was - but outside the UK where it was still legal to discuss the case. ''No it isn't!'' said the High Court, immediately claiming jurisdiction over infinity and, indeed, beyond. Soon Twitter was alive with tweets claiming to identify the alleged pursuer of the super-injunction. This is often known as ''The Streisand Effect''. That's not the nausea that the name suggests, it's the effect where attempting to hide information actually sends the stuff into viral hyperdrive.
The footballer went back to his lawyers and tried to do what the US Government have so far failed to do; force California-based Twitter to reveal the information of certain users. The UK press reported this as ''suing Twitter'' in accordance with their usual practice of elegantly ignoring the facts in case it spoilt a good story.
News organisations were rightly furious. This judgement stopped them from reporting something that any 13-year old outside the UK could legally post and share. The Scottish Herald, known for its bullish (and often slightly made-up) style had had enough. They feel they can rightly argue that the super-injunction is ineffective in our world of modern communications, the UK Attorney General seemed to agree and this morning stated that he won't be pursuing actions against the paper. Expect others to follow suit very quickly.
In a deliberate mix of sporting analogies this is definitely Strike One for free speech in the UK, and a knockout for those celebrities who suffer regular trouserage-malfunctions.
Are we breaking the law by even talking about this in the UK? We've taken a considered approach and believe that there are two serious flaws in the execution of this super-injunction;
a) The Human Rights treaty prevents us from being subject to unpublished laws and rulings
b) Information represented here is openly available on a global basis for sharing/distribution in any way that the interwebbers see fit.
Why am I interested? I don't really like soccerball much but the issues raised by the whole super-injunction thing go much much deeper than shivering memories of secondary school disappointments.
Well, one simple reason - this is the first big case in the UK that could shape the real future of how we share (or how we're allowed to share) information on the internet. That affects all of us whether we realise it or not.
CTB (depicted as one Mr. Ryan Giggs by the Herald) had, it is alleged, an affair with ex-BB-housemate and celebrity slapper Imogen 'Theres No Heaven' Thomas - aged 28 or 12 depending on how you average her body parts.
CTB toddled off to the High Court and took out an injunction so great that it became Super - its existence couldn't even be reported... and it duly was - but outside the UK where it was still legal to discuss the case. ''No it isn't!'' said the High Court, immediately claiming jurisdiction over infinity and, indeed, beyond. Soon Twitter was alive with tweets claiming to identify the alleged pursuer of the super-injunction. This is often known as ''The Streisand Effect''. That's not the nausea that the name suggests, it's the effect where attempting to hide information actually sends the stuff into viral hyperdrive.
The footballer went back to his lawyers and tried to do what the US Government have so far failed to do; force California-based Twitter to reveal the information of certain users. The UK press reported this as ''suing Twitter'' in accordance with their usual practice of elegantly ignoring the facts in case it spoilt a good story.
News organisations were rightly furious. This judgement stopped them from reporting something that any 13-year old outside the UK could legally post and share. The Scottish Herald, known for its bullish (and often slightly made-up) style had had enough. They feel they can rightly argue that the super-injunction is ineffective in our world of modern communications, the UK Attorney General seemed to agree and this morning stated that he won't be pursuing actions against the paper. Expect others to follow suit very quickly.
In a deliberate mix of sporting analogies this is definitely Strike One for free speech in the UK, and a knockout for those celebrities who suffer regular trouserage-malfunctions.
Are we breaking the law by even talking about this in the UK? We've taken a considered approach and believe that there are two serious flaws in the execution of this super-injunction;
a) The Human Rights treaty prevents us from being subject to unpublished laws and rulings
b) Information represented here is openly available on a global basis for sharing/distribution in any way that the interwebbers see fit.
Last edited:
