hyper injunctions and gossip

Musing on the injunctions - free press versus privacy issue I wondered if there might be a legal solution after all. We need to deconstruct the problem first, I think. Why do the press, mainly red tops, want to publish this stuff and why do celebs not want it published?


The red tops want to publish for commercial reasons and to feed the natural prurience of their readers, so there is a strong case for preventing them unless there is an overwhelming public interest issue at stake.


Celebs want to suppress the information presumably for a number of reasons. One may be to hide their indiscretions from their spouses or partners. This seems to me not an appropriate excuse for an injunction. After all, if press people know the story, you can bet the partner will know it pretty quickly. They may wish to protect their children - now that is a different matter. The children, if young enough, may not find out through the normal gossip channels or through social media. So. it seems to me there may be a case for preventing stories appearing in the press or other traditional news media to protect children, but allowing it to circulate on new social media where young children at least may be protected.


Furthermore, if such stories can circulate on new social media but not in the traditional media, it takes away any commercial interest in publishing the story. Without the lure of extra sales and profits, the press would thus be outflanked. And serve them right.

It is really like the legalisation of drugs - take away the financial incentive and sales will dry up. so it will be with celebrity gossip.

To sum up, perhaps there could be injunctions against commercial outlets, but not extended to the free social media. Thus we would have freedom of expression protected, but th tabloids taken out.




http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.