The making, by judges, of the so-called ‘super injunctions’ has had some unintended consequences; at least I hope they were unintended.
Whereas, without such injunctions the press and other media would be free to report the truth, or at least the allegations, the muzzling of the UK media has led to widespread ‘revelations’ on the Internet, on Twitter and the like.
Such ‘reporting’ whilst technically subject to the courts jurisdiction is, especially when originating from outside the UK, impossible for the courts to enforce, leading to, amongst others, Gabby Logan and Jemima Khan being forced to deny their involvement with notable celebrities.
These injunctions have presented those who peddle gossip and innuendo with a golden opportunity to make mischief and illustrate the problems inherent with making up the law ‘on the fly’ rather than after reasoned discussions in Parliament and elsewhere, which is how the law should be made, not in the way the judges are currently doing.
The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt is reported as saying that Twitter was ‘making a mockery’ of privacy laws – well Mr Hunt you ought really to know that there are no ‘privacy laws’ in the UK at present – that’s just the problem, the judges are making such laws up as they go along!
No comments:
Post a Comment