They already found a way to capitalise on it
We at The Register would like to take a moment to formally denounce the media's despicable smear job of US golfer Tiger Woods over malicious and unproven claims that he cheated on his wife with — at last count — every single able-bodied cocktail waitress living in the Northern Hemisphere today. What right does does the media …
Today's NY Times has an article about the possibility of England rationalizing its libel laws. Not necessarily that El Reg can't be skinned for mocking Tiger, so much as that Ruritanian A can't sue Ruritanian B in London because an English monoglot clicked on a Ruritanian-language website with A's harsh word's for B.
But somebody should point out to Accenture that only two letters differ between "ultimate' and "intimate".
Now when I search for Tiger Woods PGA Golf for Playstation as a xmas present, not only will I break this high court injunction and I will be sent to Gitmo to do time beside the Pentagon Hacker and those crazy militant Icelandic volcanic bathing pools of terror fundies, but I will also break numerous extreme pr0n laws that inundate this country, plus probably even bringing back the links will land me with the three strikes rule and my pathetic broadband connection will be cut out from under me, despite the guv'normint wanting broadband to be in every house in the country like electricity and whatnot...
Maybe they think they are allowed to report that the US media are reporting that the UK high court has blocked the publication of XXXX XXXXXXXX of XXXXX (almost slipped there). It is true that at some point, not talking about the subject sounds like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la not listening"...
Anyway, one more victim of the Streisand effect. You have to admire the futility of it all. Who gave the order? Are they actually trying to ramp up the attention on the case? I would have thought Woods would want to keep out of sight for a bit...
I hope Tiger's lawyers see this thread. I had absolutely no interest in what Woods has been up to, until he started abusing the English legal process.
It took no time at all to find the "offending matter" on websites hosted overseas, dragging up in the search lots of comment along the lines of "what filthy perversions might Woods be trying to hide?".
Big own goal Tiger - or should I say "double bogey"?
"The injunction issued Thursday notably blocks the media from even revealing details of the order itself. And because we're based in the UK, we are not allowed to say what exactly has been barred."
So how does this work then? If I want to publish something (on the web say), then I obviously need to know if it contravenes the injunction so that I don't get in bother. Do I have to approach the court for advice? Obviously I can't just ask any other news outlet because they are not allowed to tell me! But who tells them? How did the Reg find out what can and can't be published?
This is a serious question - does anyone know? Reg???
The solicitors (Schillings in this case) basically spam every news/blog outlet with a "To whom it may concern" copy of the injunction. The copy of the injunction will also have a copy of the "confidential schedule" which is the part you're not allowed to tell anyone about. In theory.
The UK isn't known as the libel capital of the world for nothing - our laws are farcical.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Who is covered by the injuction?
Presumably only those who have have been served notice of it, or have read it.
Otherwise, everyone would be forced to look on wikileaks to find out what it says otherwise they could not obey, which would be a ridiculous situation.
(About as ridiculous as extraditing a citizen to a country that uses torture for something that was not committed on their soil and was only retrospectively made a crime.)
All this talk of woods and gagging, makes me wonder if it's some sort of extreme porn. :)
I was totally uninterested in the whole thing until this happened, the Streisand effect indeed.
(OK apart from being amused that someone with the name TIGER WOODS was caught shagging)
... if accidentally break the injunction?
Lets see. There is an injunction, but we are not allowed to say what has been injuncted, and cannot discuss the existence of the injunction even if we want to prevent ourselves being sued because someone else talks about the injuncted subject.
So if I mention something here (... mumble mumble ... woods .... mumble mumble .... had his photo taken .... mumble mumble .... ) and el reg prints my comments, who gets sued? You or me?
Wait, its me, I can see the black helicopters circling.
Now the dilemma, do I go for Black Helicopters icon or Paris (who surely had never had her photo taken like that).
Injunctions are dead. They have shuffled off this mortal coil and are only of interest to lawyers and the dead tree press. Only way to prevent having images of you boning some waitress published is to.....Not have images taken of you boning aforementioned beer deliverer.
As for Tiger, good work fella! Most other blokes would have as well
There are two ways of looking at this story. Either;
a) The Honourable Mr Justice Eady is an ignorant neo-luddite who hasn't been informed of this new-fangled internet thingymajig and as a consequence doesn't realise that ANYBODY, such as myself, can download and read his 6-page order plus 2-page covering letter from Schillings from a myriad of off-shore websites.
b) Eady is working as an agent provocateur to undermine from within the useless, antiquated and frankly shit UK libel laws, to provoke an overwhelming demand from the public that the whole shoddy pack of donkey-balls be torn down and replaced with something more fitting a modern democracy.
I hope it's (b).
Aren't you missing the obvious? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Tiger Woods has something to hide and Mr. Justice Eady has materially assisted him. Hence:
c) Tiger Woods is a terrorist and Mr Justice Eady is a supporter of terrorism.
Simple logic, really! Now off to Belmarsh with him!
Yeah, Woods fucked up. Big time. I hope his soon-to-be-ex-wife takes him to the cleaners. But other than the two of them (and peripherally, various family members), who the fuck really cares? How does it affect anyone else, anywhere?
Seriously ... Given that I grok the "odds & sods" thingy, how will this so-called "news" affect the life of anyone reading this story? Even a little bit? Other than the advertisers, that is ... And yeah, I get the "RedTop" aspect, too ... but c'mon. Don't we get enough of this crap everywhere else? Does nobody other than myself have a life of their own anymore?
As I once advised an ElReg staff member, the only sex lives you should be worried about are those of your partner(s), and your own. In that order.
Losing the tired "Paris" meme would be a good idea, too, for the same reason ...
It is quite clear she gave him the traditional swedish morning after meeting of husband returning to breakfast. With a golf club.
So if she takes him to the cleaners for this, he will have no choice, but to take her too for a GBH if not an attempted murder. A golf club used on a head is usually treated as the latter (it looks like he has a very wooden head, probably that is where his family name comes from).
That is pretty much a stalemate. Pity about the kids which will grown in the midst of it.
Hopefully not too late to point out that, following some good campaigning work by Private Eye (who labour under a number of such NSL-like secret injunctions) and the Guardian (remember Trafigura?) a number of worthies including the blessed @bengoldacre launched a campaign to fix the ludicrous and execrable UK libel laws and bring and end to the particularly pernicious phenomena of libel tourism.
Write to your MP now!
The libel courts aren't paid for out of taxes, they make a fortune.
All those foreign stars arriving and paying thousands/day QCs to sue each other in London is a big foreign income earner.
Now that UK industry is stuffed, the invisible earnings in the City are stuffed and there are no tourists because we keep shooting them - fees paid to libel lawyers are probably the UK's only source of hard currency.
Living the ultimate pro sports star's dream. Go get'em Tiger!
You've got a ways to go to break that score. You're good in the rough, so that increases the pool you have to select from!
I want to report "The Register" for not using TSA approved redaction. Those black blocks must reveal something other than a string of hyphens, preferably useful information already known by the people you're trying to hide it from, and only surprising to apathetic "Joe Q. Public" who believes the line "I'm from (FEMA|Homeland Security|FBI|et al gov agencies) and I'm here to help you.
All the papers have to do is ignore the end of the injunction.
Never mention Mr Wood's name again - when he wins some golf match, just list the winner as [blank].
See how much his endorsements are worth if his name doesn't appear anymore.
They can hardly sue for not mentioning him!
Is coming form TMZ and The National Enquirer, try and connect to The National Enquirer as it seems to be blocked from the UK, Prince of Darkness blocking a US web site my LHC tin foil hat is firmly in place now for china style blocking of the interweb, try a proxie and it works, strange???
I suspect the lawyers know that they can't really stop people from finding out about the xxxxxxxxx. What I think they are doing is shafting their client for some of his millions. Considering that so much is going on I doubt that TW personally knows that the injunction doesn't really stop anyone from seeing the xxxxxxxxx even if he knew that Schillings were doing what they are doing. Its more likely that his lawyers in the US are getting money in allowing the UK lawyers to make some money.
It's not about Woods, nobody gives a fuck about some golfer.
The point is that an American celebrity screws around, every news outlet in America carries the story and pictures - but because of our 3rd world legal system he can order everybody in Britain to ignore it.
Pity Tony didn't employ Carter-Ruck, he could have banned any mention of the Iraq war or the inquiry.
NEW YORK; Dec. 13, 2009 – Accenture (NYSE: ACN) today announced that it will not continue its sponsorship agreement with Tiger Woods.
For the past six years, Accenture and Tiger Woods have had a very successful sponsorship arrangement and his achievements on the golf course have been a powerful metaphor for business success in Accenture’s advertising. However, given the circumstances of the last two weeks, after careful consideration and analysis, the company has determined that he is no longer the right representative for its advertising. Accenture said that it wishes only the best for Tiger Woods and his family.
Accenture will continue to leverage its “High Performance Business” strategy and “High Performance Delivered” positioning in the marketplace. The company will immediately transition to a new advertising campaign, with a major effort scheduled to launch later in 2010.
Sorry I got a bit confused here, when I read about 'merkins using UK law to get their way to prevent publication of something they could not do in merkin-land, I thought I must make a comment about Gary McKinnon, but the comparison between the two is so bizarre that I am lost for words
What's the difference between Tiger Woods and Santa Clause?
Santa stops after 3 Hos'
Paris, who is also a golf fanboi, I know 'cos I've seen her get a hole in one with a big wood.
Well - ya know... I was employed at Accenture through the Tiger woods era.
One of the most posted pieces of Propaganda was a Poster that stated....
Go on - Be a Tiger.
Well, Accenture seems to have truly missed the boat here. They could have started a whole new campaign launch to truly tie Sir Woods and the company together.
The Slogan..... Go on - Be a Cheetah
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021