Well, the front page of the Herald is almost entirely a picture of his face, with a tiny black bar over the eyes. Guess the lawyers forgot that an English injunction doesn’t apply in Scotland.
BigT
What gives you the unfettered right to know about the personal ife of another person with whom you have no contact?
You talk of freedom, what about the freedom of the individual from others?
Where does yours begin and anothers’ end?
Maybe you want a quick nosy around my bank account incomings and outgoings, just so long as they are printed in the press.In other words, I think your position regarding freedom is untenable.
It may surprise you, but you do not have a right to know, and why should you have such a right?
It’s all there in the European act by the way - the right to privacy.
I may or may not have the right to know, but if I do know, I have the right to speak about it.
Not if there is a court injunction in your jurisdiction that specifically excludes you from doing so, or rather, in such a case, you can speak about it, but you must then accept the consequencies.
Nobody’s asking for the right to know about Ryan Giggs’ private life. We’re talking about the right to say that somebody has made some allegations about his private life. If the allegations are untrue and damaging, Giggs can sue them. That’s a separate issue.
The injunction does not apply to my jurisdiction. Can I talk about Ryan Giggs? He’s this guy I read about on a message board.
Furthermore, if a foreign newspaper is reporting on him, can I report on that? After all, I’m not reporting on Ryan Giggs, I’m reporting on a report on Ryan Giggs.
Face it: information is fungible - it’s not restricted to any one place or jurisdiction, but rather exists in all places at once. Once it’s out there, it’s out there, and trying to to stop it is like Canute trying to turn back the sea.
Meh, I’m for freedom of the press and making it easy to sue for any stories that aren’t true.
If you don’t like the heat and lack of privacy that comes with being a celebrity then you are free to stop it at any time. No-one forces it on anyone. He doesn’t have to play football.
Plenty of people decide against careers because of certain unpalatable aspects of it. No reason why football or acting etc. should be any different.
So in effect, the media can just decide to end the career of anyone by printing anything personal and private, great way to have freedom.
By the way, freedom means the right to choose a career.
If you want to be a moralising politician, then fine, you have to behave since you are setting a personal example and may well be involved in legislation, but a footballer? Not so much.
Maybe we can report on your little doings publicly, there is always some slant we can put on it to make you look like a hypocrite or a pervert.
You see, its not just that you don’t have the right to snoop into the business of others without good reason, you forget that when the media report it, they can promote the story in any way they choose, from sympathy through to the aslacious, you don’t create or control your image, and you don’t get to choose just what manner is useed to report your story.
Still feel like putting your whole life in the hands of the media?
Just read the Wikipedia article on the issue. Considering the super injunction has already been used to prevent Parlimentary remarks from being printed and was unsuccessfully cited in an attempt at prior censorship, it looks like it’s a very troubling development.
Interestingly, Ryan Giggs and his alleged paramour is mentioned in the article. I’d never even heard of the guy before today, and because of his foolish action now I know who he’s supposed to be cheating with. Any UKers have problems accessing the articles?
The case, and indeed Twitter itself, is almost inconsequential. What the issue is here is enforcement of court orders internationally. Many, many very large companies in every country of the world use the courts frequently, and apply rulings internationally. Companies and people sue across national borders.
If it turns out that this court order can be ignored, why can’t all court ordes be ignored? Why can’t people ignore lawsuits generated in a different country? That’s the issue, and why the case matters.
The big media, news, entertainment, and record companies in particular rely on enforcing things over national borders via courts on a regular basis. It’s in their interests for this to be an easy and enforceable thing internationally.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out, but I think it will have ramifications far beyond this tawdry little case.
It’s better than the government being able to suppress opinions and criticism it doesn’t approve of.
This comment conveniently ignores the fact that it is the judiciary that has imposed this, hence it is called a court injunction, it has absolutely nothing to do with governements.
Besides which, here is no mention of any government representative here at all, and if there were, then it would be some matter of public interest.
This is not about freedom of speech at all, its about personal liberty. We all have a reasonable expectation of a private life, its why we are concerned when we are unjustifiably asked questions on the street when the police have no good reason to stop us.
You cannot have it all ways, you do not have the right to know or pry into my affairs merely because you are nosy. That same premise applies to footballers or anyone where there is no genuine public issue. Gossip is not considered to be legitimate public concern.
I have long since stopped giving a fuck about the shredded tree ‘news’ offerings, I don’t give a double fuck about football, and I don’t give a triple fuck who anyone is fucking if they’re outside my immediate monkeysphere, which is less than a dozen people.
So I would have gone through life blissfully unaware that ‘Ryan Giggs’ even exists, let alone plays football, let alone fucks around.
Except that he apparently took an injunction out so newspapers couldn’t write about his affair, and someone started a Dope thread on it, and I’m reading it. So now I know.
Mr. Giggs, I believe there is a term of art in your field, called ‘scoring an own goal’, do I have that right?
Fuck!
I agree with you, the only reason its an issue is that our lazy arse editors and proprietors are trying to keep milking the easy celebrity gossip for sales, money and advertising space, rather than doing all the hard work of, y’know, investigative journalism, they are just trying to protect their income stream.
What we have is someone on a talent(less) trying to emulate other celebrity gossip career makers such as Cheryl Cole.It is merely an extension of the publicity industry of Big Brother, Strictly, X-factor and all the rest.
What it isn’t - is about public concerns, there is absolutely no concern whatsoever for any of the people involved, it sort of reminds me of the Don Henley song
Exactly right. Due to the inability of US courts to issue injunctions of this sort, nobody over here goes into professional sports. :rolleyes:
You are conflating my quote with a point made by another person, that point, not made by me was ‘if you don’t want to have your private life scrutinised, don’t go into sport’
This was not the point I made and I suggest you direct your comment to that poster.
If we Brits were not so stupid as to swallow this shite, then there would be little incentive for out media to abuse their position in the name of selling more copy.
As for what happens in the US media, well this is not under discussion, however since this is a British injunction that is trying to assert its force far wider than its jurisdiction, it seems that your point is utterly irrelevant.
The condemnation is really for the market for this shit, my condemnation is mainly upon the British public for providing the incentive for this sort of reporting, the fucking flat forehead types, the nosy parkers, the hypocrites, the celebrity obsessed know nothings.
Courts are very specifically and deliberately not “the government”. That’s why you’re able to sue the government.
It works out okay over here.
This is not some uniquely British phenomenon, it’s human nature. Humans are social animals; the only people who aren’t “nosy parkers” are misanthropes and hermits. They have gossip rags in every country, people everywhere lap up this stuff.
But courts set precedents, and are bound by them. A precedent set in a case involving a footballer can also be applied to a case involving an MP.
Besides, these sort of injunctions are an anachronism in the modern world. If they can’t be enforced, they shouldn’t exist - otherwise they’re just a mockery of the law.