Should super-injunctions and injunctions be used at all?

June 19, 2011 4:44pm CST
Recently, there has been much controversy over the increasing number of injunctions being awarded to celebrities- in particular to football players- by High Court judges. It has been suggested that the Coalition will have to introduce a new privacy law, do you believe that a law is needed to reduce the number of injunctions dramatically or get rid of them altogether; or will this result in endless 'tabloid' news reporting. Also, should Twitter users be prosecuted or fined for breaking the terms of a super-injunction; like news organizations are?
2 responses
bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
20 Jun 11
From what I have read to get a super injunction you have to show a valad reason why you need to be protected with such a court order. maybe if people respected other peoples privacy there would not be a need for SI
anklesmash
@anklesmash (1412)
•
19 Jun 11
Ooh thats a hard one,on the one hand i don't see why the rich should be able to hide their immorality because they have the wealth to be able to afford really good lawyers.However freedom of the press should be based on whats in the public interest why do i need to know which footballer is sleeping with who.I definitely don't think that twitter users should be prosecuted the wealth of the footballers would allow them to get better lawyers and have an advantage and be more likely to win and it was the immorality of the footballer that caused it and unlike the footballer the normal twitter user could hardly afford to lose.