Alex Holowczak wrote:Paul McKeown wrote:The Sun or other highly regarded journal of record
Since when was The Sun a "highly regarded journal of record"?
Irony, my dear boy, irony.
Alex Holowczak wrote:These days, there's no privacy laws you can hope to enforce
Not true, there was a body of law (albeit by application of tort and other roundabout routes) even before the ECHR was incorporated directly into British statute. So there is a body of law: you can hope to enforce it. And in most cases, court injunctions regarding privacy are obeyed to the letter, as editors have no taste for jug.
Alex Holowczak wrote:the Internet is unmoderated
The Internet is subject to the law in the same way as all other forms of publication. There may be technical difficulties, but the same principles apply. Try to distribute copyright materials for profit without permission of the owner - you will get away with it for a while, perhaps even years, but eventually you will summoned before the courts. Try selling contraband, counterfeit or stolen goods on eBay - again you may get away with it for a while, but eventually you will have your collar felt. Try publishing pornography which involves those who have not given their consent or those who cannot give informed consent: you will eventually be sentenced to time spent at Her Majesty's pleasure and will be placed on the Sex Offenders register. Try publishing a libel on the Internet; before long the owners of the site will take it down, either as part of their own moderation process, or under threat of litigation, or, ultimately by order of a court. You may find yourself liable to pay damages, too.
The same applies to privacy injunctions; there may be loads of speculation on the current identity and whereabouts of Maxine Carr, for example, but none of it would be given credence by any sane adult, and you can bet that if you did genuinely reveal her identity, Plod would be beating down your doors pronto and you would risk serving serious time. The Master of the Rolls made it quite clear: the Internet has no immunity and, although it took some years to defeat the child porn peddlers, using the example that he gave, the apparently anonymous nature of the Internet ultimately provided no protection from the law.
The difficulties in this case lay with the failure to apply for an injunction in the Scottish Court of Sesssions, the extraterritoriality of Twitter's business, the cupidity, schadenfreude and freudenschade of tabloid editors and their frustration at not being able to make a fast buck by gloating over someone else's troubles and the (imho) misplaced bloodymindedness of some MPs in thinking that this case had something to do with press freedom. Press freedom is necessary to hold authority to account and to curb the abuse of power; this involved nothing of the sort. Future applicants for privacy injunctions will, no doubt, apply to the Court of Sessions as well as to the High Court, tabloid editors will gnash their teeth in their public impotency, MPs will do nothing much (they fear the press and avoid legislation with regard to it).
Twitter will remain extra-territorial, but heaven help its owners, should they step onto soil under English jurisdiction. The Court's do not appreciate being thwarted and they will demand an answer to the question as to why information that the High Court required to be kept private under Engish jurisdiction was made public to those living under English jurisdiction. The technical means of barring access to IP addresses originating under English jurisdiction exists, why was it not applied?
Alex Holowczak wrote:and things will sooner or later find themselves on there.
True, but does any rational person pay most of the garbage on the Internet - or any other source of unsubstantiated gossip - any credence? The Dutch have a superb word for gossip, "ouwehoeren", and indeed only the gullible give any weight to the wisdom of old whores.
Alex Holowczak wrote:In my opinion, if Giggs' lawyers should have tried to get Thomas prosecuted under the attempted blackmail laws, rather than the super-injunction laws. I don't see why you'd award a super-injunction for attempted blackmail, when you can just prosecute for attempted blackmail in the first place.
The decision to prosecute is a competence vested with the public prosecutor.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Paul McKeown wrote:Hemmings is abusing Parliamentary Privilege for purposes of self promotion.
Is he?
Perhaps I was unduly cynical as to his motives. He is misguided in my view and - more importantly - in the view of the Speaker of the Commons and many of his fellow MPs. He should be careful, Parliamentary Privilege is a blunt instrument of great force and should not be used carelessly. Parliamentary Privilege is, in theory, absolute, but so is the application of the Human Rights Act. It is a long established principle that Parliament does not interfere in the workings of the Courts and that Courts do not interfere in the workings of Parliament; parliamentarians set aside that principle at peril.
Alex Holowczak wrote:Hemmings has two "wives", or at least has two women with whom he's associated with. He doesn't care either way. He's not breaking any laws, and he's been the subject local radio interviews about it. Undoubtedly, the tabloids have noted this in the past, and perhaps tarnished his reputation within certain members of the public. So he's certainly not being a hypocrite here.
That is all his business, how he wishes to deal with it is his affair. How Ryan Giggs wishes to deal with his affairs, should likewise be a matter for Ryan Giggs, and for no third party.
Alex Holowczak wrote:By contrast, the personal affairs of Ryan Giggs isn't worth the same protection.
I disagree.