You don’t have court injunctions in the US, then?
Not of this sort, no. A pre-emptive court order forbidding everybody from mentioning something? I can see the court proceedings now …
[Lawyer]Your honor, my client would like to petition the court to forbid everyone in the United States from publicly mentioning a rumor which, I might point out, is not in the least bit true.
[Judge] … you’re kidding, right? If you get out of my court room right now, I won’t jail you for contempt wasting my time with a such an obvious joke …
And while Jodi is correct in pointing out that one can sue someone for libel, such lawsuits very rarely ever succeed.
N.B. It wasn’t the spaniel-eared one who took out the injunction, but Michael Fawcett, with whom he did nothing, nowhere, etc.
http://www.news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1239192003v
Isn’t there a cutely querulous tone to that? 
USRAM –
Sure we do, but injunctions that clearly infringe on freedom of the press, and arguably infringe on freedom of speech, are extraordinarily difficult to secure. An injunction to protect the reputation of a single individual at the expense of freedom of the press would be virtually impossible to secure.
Let me further clarify, if I can. In the States, the process of obtaining an injunction is itself a legal proceeding generally open to the public. You can get a temporary injunction on an expedited basis, based on extraordinary and/or irraparable harm to be done if it is not granted, but even if granted there will be a prompt hearing on the underlying supporting claims for the injunction, ideally within days of the granting of the emergency order (temporary injunction). So right there you’re in a bit of a quandary – how do you get an injunction to prevent the papers from reporting something, when the very proceedings to secure the injunction can be reported in the papers?
In extraordinary circumstances, a court will issue an order directing that the parties in a case do not talk about it to the press. This is called a “gag order.” Issuances of gag orders are very much frowned upon by the courts, because they restrict the free speech of the parties. Even if a case is under a gag order, however, the press may report upon it and may even include information clearly intended to have been covered by the gag order – provided they get the information from an independent source, not restrained by the gag order. (In this way, the name of the young woman accusing Kobe Bryant of sexual assault was reported in the press, and there wasn’t a thing she or the State of Colorado could do about it.) The court may also seal the record of a case, but again this is not commonly done. And note that here we are talking about cases that have been filed, not mere rumors flying around.
In matters where a grand jury has been convened, the grand jury proceedings are generally confidential as part of an ongoing investigation. But again, there must be legal proceedings in place, even if the only legal proceeding to date is to call (empanel) the grand jury.
To gag the press in order to prospectively protect a single person’s reputation – it would never be allowed. If the person who in this case sought the injunction had filed suit against PC or Burrell (or whomever), he could then ask for a gag order on the parties, and based on the nature of the allegations, he might get it. But if the details were then reported in the press anyway, either as rumor or as fact coming from a non-gagged independent source, there would not be a blessed thing the guy could do about it.
When the justice system weighs one man’s interest in having an unblemished reputation against the constitutional rights to press and speech – there’s no question what interest wins. And then the guy would no doubt feel like he’d been run over by the wheels of justice, but that’s how it has to work if these constitutional protections are to mean anything at all.
To expand slightly on what Jodi said, an injunction to prevent a party from exercising free speech is considered prior restraint on that speech, and outside of some very narrow exceptions (e.g., gag orders, clear and present danger to national security, etc.) is usually not granted.
One famous example is the Nixon administration’s attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers; SCOTUS overturned a lower court ruling and allowed the publication. In the majority opinion, the justices quote an earlier ruling:
In all honesty does anyone really give a rats ass if Charlie boy has been rogering some servant or whatever?
Now if HE had been shagged by a 6’ 4" trucker from Luton named Steve that would be worth knowing…anyway “Up The Republic” and fuck the royals…off, that is.
I’m just saying
I concur, spogga, I concur. There’s plenty of good reasons to get rid of the whole royal/nobility system without having to delve into Chuckie’s alleged personal life.
Let me see if I’ve got this right…
Charles and Servant 1 may have been fooling around and may have been seen by Servant 2…
…then Servant 1 may have raped Servant 2 to shut him up/have revenge…
…then Charles may have used his power to remove legal recourse from Servant 2.
That’s not good.
The thing that worries me, I mean * REALLY * worries me is that when Liz 2 decides to call it a day then this buffoon gets to be our next king.
The guy is not a full shilling, he is 2 vouchers short of a pop up toaster. Any bloke that preferred Farter-Bowels to Diana has gotta have a screw loose.
He talks to rubber plants, tomato plants and it wouldn’t surprise me if he has deep and meaningful chit chats with chests of drawers and empty milk bottles.
I’ts a good job I have pals in the good ole USA 'cos soon as loppy lugs ascends to the throne I’m on the next plane outta here and over there…and I’m not coming back 'til it’s over over here.
Oh be fair; if you had been married to Diana Spencer, wouldn’t you have found more interesting conversations with the plants?
I wouldn’t have spent my time talking to her Celyn, the odd grunt of satsifaction maybe and that’s about it 
That Farter-Bowels though…face like a sack full of rusty 'ammers.
Well, there is now an interim interdict to cover the Scottish papers, and it seems that Le Monde has happily pulped its copies intended for sale in the U.K., lest the U.K. distributor (Pearson, possibly, not sure?) be prosecuted for this bit of “being and nothingness” Quelle storm dans un teacup!.
Not that anyone has been accused of maltreating teacups.
Or any other item of crockery.
Or anyone who might or might not convey any cup of tea or any breakfast-related item to no-one at all.
I am beginning to enjoy the tangle of negatives involved in all this - I feel like a kitten* tangled up in a ball of wool.
*Not that there are any allegations involving kittens.
Or any other quadruped.