I’d forgotten this

The gagging order imposed over the “celebrity threesome” case has descended further into farce after a Scottish newspaper published full details of the mystery couple behind the controversial injunction.

This is one of the areas where Scottish law is different, isn’t it? Didn’t this happen before? Someone needed to have taken out an injunction in the Scottish courts as well as London but didn’t so all was revealed?

20 thoughts on “I’d forgotten this”

  1. I remember the restrictions on Will Straw dealing drugs didn’t apply to Scotland and getting the news via Usenet.

  2. “after a Scottish newspaper published full details of the mystery couple behind the controversial injunction”

    Not quite, was in the print edition but not online so worries of the reach of a court still worries the owner.

  3. Noel: unless you had already set up a geoblocking system (the only people I can think of who do this for addresses within the UK are ITV, STV and Ulster TV for their live TV streams) or did one especially for this purpose, the website would be counted as publishing in England.

  4. Guido has now published it. I think his servers are based in Ireland, and he’s saying that he’s not covered by the injunction. I wish him all the best if the bastards come after him.

  5. “johnb78
    April 11, 2016 at 8:39 am
    . . . the website would be counted as publishing in England.”

    Which is insane. What are they going to do if *I* were to post it on my blog? They couldn’t get past the initial filing in a US court and no US court would recognize a UK judgment when their law is so different from the US’ on this matter.

  6. It is insane. Am I supposed to obey what, say, the Iranian government says I can’t publish on my website just because someone in Iran may read it?

    But what makes it tricky that successful UK libel trials have been where an article has been published on an ‘overseas’ website. And while this case involves an injunction, not a libel trial, it makes media owners wary.

  7. “Sooner or later, someone would furnish the details.”

    Yes. Anyway, I’m doing a trivia quiz at the moment with my friernd Reginald. Anyone know former President Einsenhower’s first name?

  8. Dwight, but I doubt you were serious since it is so easy to find. I’m just happy I remembered off of the top of my head.

  9. Am I supposed to obey what, say, the Iranian government says I can’t publish on my website just because someone in Iran may read it?

    No, but you need to accept the responsibility for ignoring Iranian law. If you have no assets in Iran and never intend to visit there, then the impact on you might be trivial. Ditto, the UK.

    Courts are supposed to enforce civil judgements of foreign courts. It doesn’t always happen. The way English defamation law developed wasn’t really compatible with modern mass communications. Hence the huge campaign to change it.

    The expansive judicial (not governmental) interpretation of ECHR rights to privacy to block publication is ‘interesting’ and just indicates the difference between the near-absolutism of the First Amendment and the qualification of ECHR Article 10, which allows freedom of expression to be limited for the “protection of the reputation or the rights of others”.

  10. Guido believes he can re-publish some of the National Enquirer’s article complete with a picture of the cover. Why is Tim worried about the same being published as a story, link or comment?

    Tim’s website and registrar are both in USA not UK:

    Registrar GODADDY.COM, LLC
    IP Address 64.90.48.25
    IP Location United States – California – Brea – New Dream Network Llc

    Scotland’s Sunday Mail April 10 2016 published the story on front page

    Guido: The front page headline of the new National Enquirer, now on newsstands in the States, declares: “Elton John Betrayed by Cheating Husband!”

    The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

    V

    PS Tim: turn OFF IP logging on comments

  11. Vit

    Wasn’t Tim’s issue (earlier) about taking care about any possible “libel”, rather than about the injunction (if I read it correctly)?

    ps.. just a tad curious (!) – but do we know that he has IP logging turned on?

  12. “Good for him being able to get some at that age.”

    The old guy wasn’t the one getting the action. it was his younger ‘husband’.

    “No, but you need to accept the responsibility for ignoring Iranian law.”

    I accept no such thing.

  13. “Courts are supposed to enforce civil judgements of foreign courts.”
    US law explicitly prohibits enforcement of foreign libel judgements that don’t conform to First Amendment standards, notably UK libel judgements.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Tel – “Am I supposed to obey what, say, the Iranian government says I can’t publish on my website just because someone in Iran may read it?”

    They think so. Just ask Salman Rushdie. A lot of the Left believes so. Look how many are willing to publish the Muhammed Cartoons.

  15. Bloke in Costa Rica

    A lot of people are going to be saying Guido’s a madman. Across the water in the US at least they still pay lip service to a free press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *