Helen Wood, the former escort girl caught up in one of the cases involving an actor, said super-injunctions allowed wealthy male celebrities to behave as they wanted and set a "bad example".Unless I'm mistaken the super-injunction serves to prevent anyone finding out what these wealthy male celebrities are up to in which case it is hard to see how their unreported and unpublicised bad behaviour could set any kind of example to anyone.
From the same report an argument for them:
Media lawyer Charlotte Harris, of Mishcon de Reya, said the stories subject to super-injunctions were quite often cases of "nasty blackmail". She said: "You should be allowed to end a relationship with somebody, whether you are married or not, without having that person say 'right, I'm going to go to the paper, I'm going to destroy your life, I'm going to tell everybody every intimate thing about you'. "You should have some protection."While in general we should protect others from acts of revenge it's difficult to apply that principle to super-injunctions. Again, unless I'm mistaken the super-injunction is used to prevent the reporting of something that is true or at least true enough that the paper would not lose a libel case over it. In that case the damage is damage to reputation and only damaging because the reputation is not truly warranted. It seems difficult to me to make the case that the law should be in the business of protecting the false reputations of the famous.
If you want protection from acts of revenge by scorned lovers then the best bet is probably not to go off having extra-marital affairs with people.
UPDATE: Please read another post on this topic here.
No comments:
Post a Comment