The so-called superinjunction is a gag order that “prevents the media from even reporting that an injunction was obtained,” and runs against the public generally rather than merely organizations named in the legal action. In Britain, which lacks a tradition equivalent to our First Amendment, courts regularly hand down these orders on the grounds of protecting litigants’ privacy, and controversy is mounting as a result. [Guardian and editorial, Kampfner/Independent, Katya Wachtel/Business Insider (on RBS executive case)]
4 Comments
I’m not allowed to comment on this post. Wait, I wasn’t supposed to say that. Crap. Is there an attorney in the house?
And of course they are totally useless, it only takes a few minutes with giggle to find who it is.
I sympathize with bona-fide privacy injunctions. “Ain’t nobody’s business if you do.”
I share opposition, however, to injunctions that cover up issues of political or scholarly controversy.
[…] “A British judge has banned Twitter users from identifying a brain-damaged woman in one of the first attempts to prevent the messaging website from revealing sensitive information.” The woman’s mother wishes to cut off her life support. [Reuters, related] […]