[Closed] A genuine super injunction inquiry...

I was going to ask that. I run a cycle club forum so in theory could find out all of the super injunctions under this guise.

i think the super injunctions only apply to the uk.outside the uk it's fine to print what they want,and they have.i think it was a french paper that named *footballer*,apparently in media circles the names are common knowledge - they just can't print them

sausage, please remove that name...I'm trying not to get this thread closed! I want to know about how STW towers know who we can and can't talk about, NOT WHO it is 🙂

EDIT: that was quick!

It's a valid point. I'm not sure the whole - [i]"You absolutely must not talk about this person, or you'll be in contempt of court", "Which person?", "I can't tell you"[/i] - situation is in the interest of free speech.

Are we basically not allowed to speculate on any kind of tabloid antics of any kind involving anyone at all, just in case they happen to have a superinjunction?

i don't get it - does a super-injunction mean no-one is allowed to speculate with idle chit-chat and gossip about a particular person?

in writing only, i guess?

how is that enforcable? forums are no more than a written conversation and in today's media, have no more worth than a converstaion apart from it being recorded. but still, no more real value or weight.

any legal experts here? just interested.

for what little it's worth, i don't read stuff on twitter or use facebook, i couldn't give a tss what celeb or the 'famous' do, whether they want us to know or not.. it's either serious and newsworthy (ie has an actual effect on us) or it's pointless media drivel. i'm just interested in how something like this prevents people gossiping on a forum of some kind somewhere.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/super-injunctions-2

i'm just interested in how something like this prevents people gossiping on a forum of some kind somewhere

It doesn't - it allows injuctionee [?] to seek redress and have you desist

superinjunctions mean that not only can't you talk about someone but you can't talk about the fact that you can't talk about them.

bar mainstream media I think the publisher is contacted if it's felt a breach has occurred and asked to remove any allegations.

They're not called "super injunctions" for nothing. The whole point of them is that you're not suppose to know who they concern. I think it might even be illegal to think about them, or mention the term "super injunction".

"Singletrack, like any other media outlet, has to conform to the terms of injunctions passed by the high court. If you post anything that runs the risk of breaching any injunction, no matter if breaches have happened elsewhere in the public domain, we will remove your post as soon as we become aware of it."

So does Mark have a list of current injunctions in front of him at all times?
Is the reason the 'footballer' threads have disappeared because we assume all the gossip is true or because STW have definitive proof in the form of contact from a lawyer?

It just fascinates me...!

i read that Dave, thanks, but that's what sparked the question - forum gossip by an individual isn't the same as a paper suggesting something on the front page. Maybe it is now in this case.
So it just gives them the right to sue, and the publisher is liable, in this case you're seen as the publisher. But surely you can't be held responsible for a hidden accusation about this guy that was hidden in another topic? seems a bit much.

I didn't pay a lot of attention to the subject when it was on the news a while back, but took a bit more interest knowing it affected something like this site.

edit - Uplink, ta - i suppose the threat of redress is all they can do to try to prevent it.

Are you allowed to mention the word footballer then?

I still don't get it. How does a publisher know who are thay are not meant to talk about?

So are the Super-Injunction Lawers like the thought police? )

i'm off to build a bike and carry on ignoring 'celeb' BS ...

(if this means a whole industry of tabloid gossip-rubbish dies out, leaving the lone, self-published and attention-seeking bleatings of the katonas and jordans to fade to nothing, super injunctions are great.. who cares what people do outside of professional life, rockstars celebrate the coke 'n' hookers life so why not sportsmen..)*

*in no way an implication of any particular sportsman enjoying illicit pleasures of any kind, any how, ever.

It's either total paranoia or maybe a notice comes via the press association

It's a bit like scrolling down the list of new topics on STW. I've got no interest in most of them until I see one has been locked.
I've got no interest in celebrity gossip, but like franksinatra, this has got me wondering how it works.

Supposing I was to say "Footballer A has had an affair with model B" or "Actor C has had an affair with singer D"

How does a publisher know there's a superinjunction on A, so I mustn't mention him, but I can say what I like about B, C & D ?
Is there a master list of superinjunctions that only newspaper editors are issued with ?
Is it also issued to website and forum publishers, or do they have to go on heresay ?

I still don't get it. How does a publisher know who are thay are not meant to talk about?

Obviously you don't get it..........the publisher [u]is not suppose to know[/u] who are they are not meant to talk about. Otherwise it would just be a bog standard ordinary injunction. How difficult is that to understand ? ffs

So, to use my example above, let's say I've heard a rumour from a friend in France, where the UK superinjunction is not enforceable, about footballer A.
I then repeat the rumour here.
How do the STW mods know to remove it ?

What if I was a journalist on a local paper and submitted the story to my editor ? How would he know not to publish it ?

The implications of super-injunctions are starting to scare me a bit.
I can't believe that STW and us as participants/customers who are all bound together by an interest in mountain bikes are being impacted by legal actions by people we've never even met and have no great interest in. That's insane!
It's like we have to self-censor about everything we say about people in the public eye just in case someone we mention (unknown to us and STW) gets STW into legal trouble.
That's clearly an unsustainable situation. It's like we've accidentally created a thought police state, but without an actual head of state trying to control...

No criticism of the STW stance here, more dumbfounded that something apparently unrelated to STW seems to be having such a fundamental impact on the site. I mean, are forum publishers going to start shutting down to avoid putting themselves in the line of fire, totally accidentally?

let's say I've heard a rumour from a friend in France, where the UK superinjunction is not enforceable

They're going to get round that little problem.......they're going to introduce 'global humongous injunctions'. And it will be illegal to have even slightly bad thoughts about the person concerned. But only if they take out an injunction, obviously.

I don't see the point of them. They don't protect the nearest and dearest from their dodgy behaviour, just the great unwashed.

Wayne Rooney has been outed with wrinkly sex professionals a few times, and it soon blows over. Partly because he then does something else more stupid, but that's footballists in a nutshell.

In all honesty I don't get it either.

if the publisher knows that there is a story involving a footballer but not which footballer does this mean that all footballer stories are off limits, what's going to happen to match of the day?

what's going to happen to match of the day?

Regional weather forecast?

If you have a look on caughtoffside.com where they are talking about footballers & superinjunctions they mention the person in question several times in the comments about the article.

How come they are allowed to publish it but STW aren't, & on a slightly different slant, if I mentioned it on my facebook status, or wrote it on someone's wall could I expect a call from a footballers lawyers? Whereas if I text the info to a mate that'd be fine?

Also if I was a Blackpool fan & at Old Trafford tomorrow & joined in certain chants directed at a footballer what would happen then? Would SKY tv or whoever is showing it have to mute the crowd noise?!

Just posting to check I haven't been banned.

Edit: oh, I haven't, good. Thought it would have been a little heavy handed, but wasn't sure after my relatively innocuous threat was pulled.

See what I mean ?
ScottCheg has mentioned a name and it hasn't been deleted.
How does an STW mod or the editor of the Sun know which names to delete ?

I find the paradox amusing. The only reason we can't mention [i]you know who[/i] is because everyone knows who he is.

But surely you can't be held responsible for a hidden accusation about this guy that was hidden in another topic? seems a bit much.

How come they are allowed to publish it but STW aren't

Edit, the post I was replying to has been deleted, presumably because it mentioned another site where a name has been published.

I don't see the point of them. They don't protect the nearest and dearest from their dodgy behaviour, just the great unwashed.

I don't think that is the point tbh.
These are people who've done something they don't want other people to know about - usually something nefarious or illegal if you look at cases so far. It's not their nearest and dearest they're worried about (otherwise they wouldn't have been having an affair in the first place!) It's their public image, which affects their career and income stream... that they're trying to protect...

Look if you guys are really bothered about super injunctions, then the best solution is to gossip about someone who hasn't taken out a super injunction.

It's their public image, which affects their career and income stream... that they're trying to protect...

I've heard a rumour about a famous trailquester and his three in a bed romps with Felicity Kendall and Kate Bush.
It hasn't been in the papers, therefore there must be a superinjunction in force, therefore it must be true.

I predict this will go the same way as illegal downloading and record companies. They brought the lawyers in to stop something happening that they didn't like and then realised because so many people were doing it, they couldn't stop it happening and gave up fighting.
There aren't enough lawyers in the world to keep up with the number of people downloading illegally.

Equally, there are too many people communicating online and too many places to publish for the lawyers to keep up with, which means in practice the super injunctions won't actually be able to enforce any kind of silence... it would be like trying to pick up each individual grain of salt piece by piece after you dropped the whole bag on the floor...

I've heard a rumour about a famous trailquester and his three in a bed romps with Felicity Kendall and Kate Bush.
It hasn't been in the papers, therefore there must be a superinjunction in force, therefore it must be true.

Not been deleted yet, so I guess it's just wishful thinking.

Anyway, shouldn't he be out filling that trench before the weather turns?

Don't know why we need superinjunctions.

Everyone knows footballers love tangerine tarts...

he plays footy and he hardly courts publicity

Who does? Michael Owen?

The thing is about this, if it did all come out in the press there'd be a couple weeks of it, then it'd blow over pretty quick, but trying to cover it up makes everyone want to know & gossip about it.

I think it's best to just close the forum, just in case like, #superinjunction

By the way, can I say that, or is there a superinjunction preventing me from talking about superinjunctions? #superinjunction?

[img] [/img]

Equally, there are too many people communicating online and too many places to publish for the lawyers to keep up with, which means in practice the super injunctions won't actually be able to enforce any kind of silence..

Well one issue with the most talked about super injunction is the woman involved is prohibited from responding to criticisms about her in the press because she's not allowed to talk about the events covered by the superinjunction. The fact that it's on websites all over the world (not just twitter) notwithstanding, surely gagging one party to a level that damages HER ability to live a private life (admittedly a big bro contestant can't really be that keen on privacy) because of someone elses wish for privacy is a mental thing for a judge to decide.

Of course the whole issue would be sidestepped if prominent people could keep it in their pants, particularly with tabloid fodder ladies.

How do you damage the privacy of someone who sold a story about her alleged affair to a newspaper? I think when you go on BB then do that you cannot use a privacy defence with any form of credibility.

Of course the whole issue would be sidestepped if prominent people could keep it in their pants, particularly with tabloid fodder ladies.

Do you think the media bods will be publishing lists of journalists who had extra- marital affairs or who do drugs whilst their papers rant about it or will they just expose other peoples hypocrisy?

bit niche [ thinking of subscribing actually is it worth Graham?]though and they dont report it in the tabloid press do they

Im with the OP. If there is a super injunction the media cant tell us who it is, therefore how do we know who we're not allowed to mention.

What if I made an accurate guess, have I broken some rule by being a good guesser?

Junkyard, I subscribe and it's well worth it. It's the only genuinely politically neutral "newspaper" out there.

And, to go some way to answering my own question earlier.

[b]6[/b] Number of superinjunctions revealed on Twitter last week, with incorrect details
[b]53[/b] Number of superinjunctions and anonymised privacy injunctions which Private Eye is aware of

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/

There's a bit more about superinjunctions here.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=street_of_shame&issue=1287
And before the mods get too worried about me posting external links in this thread, this is all stuff that has appeared in print in a national UK publication.

For those who can't understand all the fuss over celebrity tittle tattle, there are also superinjunctions covering;

Financial arrangements made by the chief executive of another global company while it was experiencing widely reported problems.

“Private information” that MoD adviser Bernard Gray – since appointed to the position of Chief of Defence Materiel – communicated to an individual, or who exactly that individual was.

So no one knows who or what can't be said?

So if I make a joke about a footballer 'being good at playing away' and 'scoring lots' and pluck a name out of thin air could I get in trouble?

I hear Kevin Nolan* has played away lots this year and has scored lots.

Do STW (or anyone else for that matter) know if I've broken a super injunction with a poor football-terminology based quip? And how do they not know? Will it be deleted on the off chance?

It still amazes me...

*fairly sure he's happily married (so it's all probably true... ;-))

The issue we have is that we are the publisher of this forum. That means that anything that appears on this forum is deemed to have been published by us and as such we are responsible for everything that is posted. When someone posts something libellous for example then it is STW that is considered to have published the libel.

We may be just a bike forum but with over 600,000 unique users a month we pop up on some surprisingly mainstream 'radars' and I DO get several litigious sounding communications a month that always require careful handling.

In practice we should be ok so long as we can show that we took reasonable and rapid action to tackle any issues once we were made aware of them. It's not the mere appearance of litigious comments that would land us in trouble but rather the fact we didn't act to mitigate the issue once we have been made aware of it's existence.

The fact Im monitoring the forum from the middle of Dalby Forest and have unfortunately had to ban several users this morning is a sign of how seriously we have to take this stuff. We may have hundreds of thousands of site users every month but we aren't big enough to afford a big legal team to help dig us out of holes we've been put in by forum users, and so we moderate.

Not that we just roll over. I've actually said the words, "see you in court then" on at least a couple of occasions but ultimately our moderation policies on stuff like this are pragmatic and the amount of time I want to spend arguing legalities with disgruntled individuals is a consideration.

...and I DO get several litigious sounding communications a month...

Now that's got me even more intrigued.
Continental got a bit of a slating recently and the quality of Crank Brothers' products is regularly discussed negatively.

Do manufacturers try to get threads deleted ? Go on, tell us who we've upset.

The big boys going after small fry is nothing new, eg. the McLibel case
.......the McDonald's Corporation v Helen Steel and David Morris.

This is a bit different though if it is manufacturers. There's an interdependence between magazines and manufacturers. I would imagine both parties would rather settle any dispute amicably than go to court.

I appreciate your reply from the depths of a forest Mark!

How would you or I know when we have talked about a person or incident that is covered by an injunction?

Have you had official word that the footballer we 'think' we can't name IS the footballer we can't name?
And if not, then how do you know which internet rumours to believe and act on?

best deleted 😀

I can't remember the last time I was threatened legally by someone in the industry... Actually I can. It was superstar components.. :-). But no.. The industry is the last place legal nonsense comes from. It's more likely to be an electricity company who doesn't like the fact a users comments on their shoddy customer service have appeared in their google results.

The current injunction that has been discussed is almost entirely in the public domain now. This has a number of implications. Firstly the fact it's almost public knowledge means a defence of 'but I didn't know!' is a bit risky. Secondly, despite the info being pretty much in the public domain that doesn't negate the actual terms of the injunction until a judge lifts it.

Any other injunction we wouldn't know about until it was breached, in which case we would be made aware of it by legal representatives of those involved. Once we have been made aware of it we would then have to ensure that no further breaches took place. It gets a bit scary and daft at that point because we clearly can't tell you openly not to post about X without breaching the injunction.

Its all stupid 🙂

P
Did you reply with an octopus giving him a rude gesture? 😆

The interesting thing is that sites like Twitter and Facebook are blurring the boundaries of what's idle conversation with friends, and what's 'publishing'. Suing someone for telling a friend in person that they heard it was x wot done it is ludicrous, and this is the issue potentially faced with Twitter and the like.
Another interesting point I read is that Twitter doesn't actually have an office in the UK, so may not be particularly bothered by all these shenanigans. Although, taking it to extremes, you do start to wonder whether there is a future where Twitter is banned in the UK.
Or perhaps it will be taken as an example of why superinjunctions are a ****ing joke. "I did this thing, but you sure as hell can't tell anyone"

I expect this thread to be closed soon too, simply because it's too risky to be seen to publishing anything that might mention names. Which is fair enough - it's not like Mark et al really want to get themselves caught in the middle of this guff.

you are right but remember the media can only overturn this by proving it is in the public domain and therefore pointless to keep it private. Where do you think this information is coming from they are almost certainly responsible for the leaking?
there is a difference between you and I discussing something in the pub and you and I discussing something on here where anyone can read it
not sure they are a joke just this one there are many other where we have no idea who or what they are about so they do seem to work except when somone who sells a sex story is gagged and has a media consultant and appears in the papers everyday going on about it etc.

Here's a scenario:

Said footballer turns out for his club at an away game against one of their bitter rivals, 20 to 30,000 fans of the home club all start chanting at said footballer & giving him lots of stick regarding his 'activities'....

It's bound to happen!

Cheers Mark, I guess that makes it clearer.

I wonder how much people get paid to sift through the internet for references to their clients??

oh well suppose I shouldnt

I wonder how much people get paid to sift through the internet for references to their clients??

Tip-offs from disgruntled banned STWers I suspect.

That RudeFredBoy geezer always struck me as a grass who bore a grudge 💡

The wendyballer has already threatened to sue Twitter, which should be interesting as their head office is in San Fransisco, and free speech is part of the US Constitution, so good luck with that one, squire. On a more disturbing note, a senior legal figure is seriously talking about using the law to control the Internet, which brings us horribly close to countries like China, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc, in attempting to censor the 'net. Bloody judges are getting out of control, they are even talking about removing Parlimentary Privilege, FFS!

i think you are getting a bit carried away ...the judges said parliament should respect the law - what with the law being one of the checks on the powers of parliament - they make the law someone else implements it. It something that differentiates democracies from the countries you mention
they are not trying to remove parlimanetary privledge

It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.
"But you do need to think, do you not, whether it's a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.

They are not suing twitter they want the details of the poster. It is not the same thing. They think the person should be held accountable for the things they posted.
it is not inconceivable that it was posted by a sun journalist or even the lady concerned
It is an interesting issue but I am not sure why we seem to think the natural state for the web is unhindered free speech when we dont have it anywhere else.

What happened about the ranting homo(phobic) distributor who looked like a Bavarian pron star and was an utter tool?

what i also wonder is where do things have to be, if a french website publishes a story then it doesn't breach the injunction, but what about a french website hosted on British servers?

A super injunction as i understand it means you are not allowed to talk about the existence of an injunction.

anyway what we need to do is introduce Newspeak, should help to control this dodgy behaviour.

Apparently these super injunctions don't apply in Scotland!

Super injunctions are very confusing. Thee BBC can't say who it is (even though they know) but they can report that the information is available at another media source (and they name it on the news every half hour).

Surely that would go against the terms of the initial gagging order?!

I heard them described elsewhere as trying to diffuse a bomb by punching it.

Apparently these super injunctions don't apply in Scotland!

Correct, there was someone talking on Radio Scotland about it the other day. They said a superinjunction taken out in a court in England wouldn't apply in Scotland as it's a different legal system. Anyone seeking a superinjunction would have to apply for an interdict up here. They also stated that the media in Scotland have followed any superinjunctions brought about in England though and no attempt, at the time of that broadcast, had been made to challenge that.

and a certain scottish newspaper, i assume to mention the name is to break the injunction? has apparently published details, but it seems their website is down? Coincidence?

So when's STW going to move it's servers to Scotland then?
Kelvin McKenzie sounds like a Scottish name too 🙂

As far as I can tell * ** is sueing twitter for allowing his name to leak out, breaching the gagging order. if you Google 'named footballer Imogen Thomas', fourth hit for wakeywakeynews clearly shows * ** name, but the site itself has been shut down. Horse/stable door? There's a Twitter quote from a famous celebrity #Saving**Privates(**) Ha! on page 9 of The MoS. If it's that clear on the web and in a national newspaper, then the whole thing is truly farcical.

it is a farce, google Wikipedia and CTB.

and a certain scottish newspaper, i assume to mention the name is to break the injunction? has apparently published details, but it seems their website is down? Coincidence?

although I suppose if you were to google the name of "The Scottish Paper" and the word Twitpic...

mrmo - Member
it is a farce

Amen.

This is all getting rather pathetic. You simply can't put the cat back in the bag, nor can you deny that it's pi55ing all over the carpets everywhere.

Published up here because the paper in question suggests that the libel laws will not stand up in Scotland.I assume they took advice first, a LOT of advice.