David Ayers Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) Guys, when I look at this US -based page the name of the 'footballer' is blanked out: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/uk-court-subpoenas-twitter-for-names-of-super-injunction-tweeters/10123 Is this being done in the UK or can't you guys in the US read the name on the page either? Obviously I wasn't trying to find out the name but for anyone who is curious the wikipedia entry on superinjunctions clears up any mysteries. What I don't get is how the hell these injunctions work. Let's say I can read. So I read on pages outside UK about this guy. So then I mention it online. But though I know the name of someone how do I in fact know there is a superinjunction (because the injunctions are anonymous)? So it's only when I repeat a claim known to anyone who can read that the law then emerges and says uh sorry there's a super-injunction against you mentioning that. But how do I know? So for example there may be a super-injunction against me mentioning that Ryan Giggs is a possible successor to Sir Alex Ferguson at Old Trafford. If there is, I can be sued, right? How do I know until I say it? Very puzzling. Edited May 22, 2011 by David Ayers Quote
ejp626 Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 Guys, when I look at this US -based page the name of the 'footballer' is blanked out: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/uk-court-subpoenas-twitter-for-names-of-super-injunction-tweeters/10123 Is this being done in the UK or can't you guys in the US read the name on the page either? Obviously I wasn't trying to find out the name but for anyone who is curious the wikipedia entry on superinjunctions clears up any mysteries. What I don't get is how the hell these injunctions work. Let's say I can read. So I read on pages outside UK about this guy. So then I mention it online. But though I know the name of someone how do I in fact know there is a superinjunction (because the injunctions are anonymous)? So it's only when I repeat a claim known to anyone who can read that the law then emerges and says uh sorry there's a super-injunction against you mentioning that. But how do I know? So for example there may be a super-injunction against me mentioning that Ryan Giggs is a possible successor to Sir Alex Ferguson at Old Trafford. If there is, I can be sued, right? How do I know until I say it? Very puzzling. The writer of the blog is from the UK, so he intentionally/ironically blanked it out to make a statement. I think this is clearly a case where UK law is so unbelievably stupid, it's hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. Not only you can't report the details of a topic (like a normal injunction) but you can't even report that there is an injunction on the issue itself. Very Alice in Wonderland. Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 Best consult a solicitor before saying anything, about anything at all - lest you then require the services of a barrister as well. Indubitably. Quote
papsrus Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 Obviously I wasn't trying to find out the name but for anyone who is curious the wikipedia entry on superinjunctions clears up any mysteries.... If you meant to say the specific case you're talking about is mentioned in the Wiki entry, I didn't see it. I did learn about hyper-injunctions though. Do they also have super-hyper-injunctions as well? I imagine they would pertain to stuff no one at all knows anything about but are prevented from speculating about in any case. I think I prefer a system where everyone is basically free to shoot their mouths off and then sue one another afterward. Quote
Niko Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 Obviously I wasn't trying to find out the name but for anyone who is curious the wikipedia entry on superinjunctions clears up any mysteries.... If you meant to say the specific case you're talking about is mentioned in the Wiki entry, I didn't see it. it's also found in the wikipedia article on a guy named Ryan Giggs Quote
papsrus Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 I'm reluctant to say anything more out of risk of being put under some super-duper-hyper injunction. Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 I'm reluctant to say anything more out of risk of being put under some super-duper-hyper injunction. I think perhaps you've already said too much. Quote
David Ayers Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) The beauty of the super-injunction is that you aren't allowed to mention that it exists... spooky... Here's the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_British_super-injunction_controversy Edited May 22, 2011 by David Ayers Quote
papsrus Posted May 22, 2011 Report Posted May 22, 2011 Seriously -- how can one violate a legal restriction that can't be acknowledged? Quote
David Ayers Posted May 22, 2011 Author Report Posted May 22, 2011 And one that applies in England - not even in Scotland: http://www.maxfarquar.com/2011/05/front-page-of-the-sunday-herald/ Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted May 23, 2011 Report Posted May 23, 2011 Some further coverage, from even further overseas... Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.