back to article Super-injunction Twitter user in contempt of court if tweets were true

A Twitter user who claims to have posted information that is banned from publication by the UK courts on the social network site could be found in contempt of court, a media law expert has said. The anonymous user posted six 'tweets' claiming to reveal the identity of celebrities who have obtained super-injunctions banning the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Joke

    OK Buddy

    Which one of you is Spartacus?

  3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers

    Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2

  4. Stratman

    title

    I see Max Moseley has lost his case before the Euo courts.

    He wanted it made compulsory for news organisations to inform people before publishing things about them in order to give them the chance to take out injunctions.

    The Eurobeaks said "Nein, non, nej......"

  5. This post has been deleted by its author

  6. dr2chase
    WTF?

    WTF?

    If we don't know who has the super-injunction, how can we be held responsible for publishing details about them, but it's contempt of court to reveal who we should not be talking about? Is this some weird mash-up of Fight Club and Catch-22?

    1. DavCrav Silver badge

      Exactly the point

      The screwed-up British court might well find you in contempt, but I think the more reasoned (in this respect) European court would point out that it is difficult for a person to follow a court order that they cannot know because of an injunction.

    2. Jonathan Carlaw

      Re: Catch-22

      As I understand it, it's not contempt to post something covered by a super-injunction you are unaware of - but to post that Person X has a Super Injunction for yyy implies you believe they have a super injunction in place - and so know you are not permitted to publish anything about it, hence are in contempt.

  7. The BigYin

    Simple answer...

    ...to super injunctions. If you covet a public life and/or use your public profile to make a living (film/music stars, MPs etc) then avoid all the injunction hassle by not dipping your wick in someone else's wax, making false claims or otherwise being a total cock.

    Personally I don't care if you like to be dressed as a baby and spanked by "mummy", but I do care when you try to cover up your actions and present yourself as something you are not.

  8. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge
    Grenade

    What a load of precocious plonkers

    Are not such super injunctions as discussed about here not a blatant abuse of the justice system and a disgrace that lawyers and the courts think that it is not so? It is though a nice little earner for those who would falsely claim to be able to hide the truth in a matter. And what a laughing stock all involved have made of themselves to think themselves to be so precious.

    And how very typically wishy washy of Tory boy Cameron to jump into the fray after the fact with a bland admission that he feels "uneasy at the increasing use of court orders obtained by celebrities to ban media reports about their private life.", as if anyone cares what he feels about anything he doesn't control.

    If it is the truth that you know, print and be damned or else you will be led by the nose into a false world where lies and deceit rule, and what sort of an idiot would want that?

    Come on now, if you have a view, squeak up, or forever hold your peace .... until you wise up and realise that you are being played for the ignorant fool by arrogant tools.

  9. BorkedAgain

    The Streisand Effect...

    ...strikes again...

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    One set of laws for the rich and famous...

    One set of laws for the rich and famous, a second set for the rest of the people.

    This is a failure of the justice system.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Freedom of the press and speech

    The 1st amendment of United States Constitution:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Go ahead and copy and use it. We won't mind.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021