There’s been a lot of attention paid recently to the process of super injunctions being issued in the UK, which block newspapers from reporting on certain people or issues (quite frequently, they’re used to get stories of famous people having affairs blocked from publication). This, of course, seems antithetical to the concept of free speech. All of that attention, not surprisingly, has resulted in a fair amount of backlash from people who don’t like being censored. And, thanks to communication tools like Twitter, people are able to make themselves heard. Not surprisingly, folks on Twitter are mocking the super injunctions and freely speaking about those who allegedly are taking out these super injunctions.
In response, it appears that the next strategy is for judges to include sites like Twitter and Facebook in the injunction itself:
The new injunction restricts the publishing of the woman’s identity in “any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, internet site, social network or media including Twitter or Facebook, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service”
But how do they enforce that? Especially if the people are not in the UK. It’s difficult to see how the UK can seriously hope to just stop people from talking about an individual, just because they had enough cash around to take out such a super injunction.
Sourced from TechDirt