June 2011; Should people in the public eye be able to use super-injunctions to keep their private lives private?

In its purest form, a ‘super-injunction’ refers to a legal gagging order which not only prevents the media from reporting the details of a story, but also forbids mention of the existence of the injunction itself.

Super-injunctions were brought to light when an MP asked a parliamentary question regarding an alleged dumping of toxic waste and, as parliamentary privilege allows MPs to speak freely without fear of being prosecuted for contempt of court, the media picked up on this case. Whilst newspapers refrained from printing the question, Twitter users picked up on the story bring the information into the public domain.

Many legal experts have said the widespread online speculation concerning the content of super injunctions has rendered them pointless, and warn that those publishing details online could face legal action. As the media coverage hits fever-pitch surrounding recently reported cases, the Government has launched a review to look again at the law surrounding privacy and injunctions.

Arguments in favour of using ‘super-injunctions’

Jeremy Clarkson in favour of super-injunctions

Thinking clearly about superinjunctions

Why this outrage against super-injunctions is farcical

Arguments against the use of ‘super-injunctions’

These vile online lies only spread because judges are suppressing the truth

It’s more than tittle-tattle, it’s a morality tale

Super Injunctions on Twitter

Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or Email.