I don’t know how this story has been handled in the states. There is a story going around fleet street that something happened at Buckingham Palace, but, because of a court order, the newspapers aren’t allowed to say what happened.
Prince Charles took the bizarre step of admitting it was him who was involved in this story, but he didn’t do it, whatever it was. This has all left everyone very confused.
Has this incident been reported in the US press? Seeing as the injunction was taken out in a british court, I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t have. I looked on the CNN website, but they skirted around being specific. I can’t find any mention of it on Yahoo news.
Does anyone know what Charles has not done? Are there any legal implications of stating something that someone hasn’t done? Would anyone like to suggest something that he hasn’t done?
he hasn’t done a lot of things, and If you’re asking me I’d put good money on the fact that he hasn’t done the thing you’re referring to either. It would be a very out-of-chracter thing for him to have done.
The courts can do that over there? I admit to being astonished.
If any court tried to squelch a story over here it would end up all over every front page in the country along with sidebars about the evils of suppression of speech and calls for the administrations resignation.
If you can stream real audio the friday link on this page will give you todays Gerry Ryan show on Irish Radio. Within the first 10 mins or so they talk about the story. Well one of them anyway.
Ya, the big non-story was on the CNN website this am. I was so glad to hear he didn’t do it (whatever it was). And apparantly, it (whatever it was) happened a long time ago, too. Phew, that was a close call!
My knowledge of the law is pretty ropey at best, but individuals can take out injunctions against information. I’m not sure what grounds they need to do this though, and it is fairly rare. I think its like a kind of pre-emptive libel law.
One of the controversial aspects of this case is how easily the royals seem to have been able to get an injunction. Apparently one of Charle’s aides rang a judge on Saturday afternoon. The judge was in a car on his way to the golf course or something, but he still granted an injunction against the publication of this story in a sunday newspaper. This is highly irregular, and has made people very suspicious of how the royal family influence the judiciary (of course, the queen is technically their boss, thanks to our crazy constitution).
In some cases, I would agree with an injunction when an allegation is made against someone with very little evidence to back it up. Allegations like this can ruin someones reputation, and considering the low moral standards of the british press, they do need to be reigned in sometimes. I always thought there would be similar legislation in the US
I know of no pre-publication prevention of publication law that doesn’t require strenuous proof for text. Occasionally we’ll see injunctions over here over images such as nude images of an actress that she doesn’t want to see published. She can claim ownership of the image or somesuch.
But frequently even information with national security implications can be printed if obtained legally by the newspaper.
And let us never forget that the truth cannot be libel! So if, over here, Prince Charles did something and I could prove he did it then I can run with it to my hearts content. But of course he didn’t. He was never near there and never did that! Ever! Whatever it was!
And last but not least, remember kids! A free press is always as free as the nearest lawyer!
I read the original BBC item after a lengthy wallow with a Bit of Fry and Laurie book – I was so sleepy by that time, sifting through ‘Well, he’s done something…can’t say what…but he denies it…fair enough…’ etc, I thought I still reading one of their sketches, like the one about Marjorie falling off her horse…