Another Thought on Super-Injunctions

A couple of weeks ago I looked at two of the arguments put forward regarding super-injunctions. At the time I made the point that they only served to gag the truth, never untruth. I think this point needs more attention.

As a Libertarian I don't want the State to get involved in making decisions for us. This includes things like which foods are good for us and which aren't as well as deciding which businesses are good and which aren't. I believe that us people collectively can regulate each other's actions and attitudes in a better way. We can do this by voting with our wallets. If we don't like the way a certain company treats its employees we can refuse to buy from them. Conversely, if we think that a certain bank has invested wisely we are more likely to lend it our money.

This entire system, though, relies on knowledge. We have to know what people are doing in order to make decisions about whether to encourage those actions or discourage them. And that means, I think, that the press (and everyone else) must be free to report whatever they want about whomever they want so long as what they report is true and accurate. And if it isn't then the person they damaged can sue.

It might be that the off-field antics of a footballer are not obviously something we should care about. But this is not a decision for anyone other than ourselves to make. Because there may be enough people who care about it to stop going to see that guy's team play, or maybe just refuse to buy products he endorses. Who knows? Who cares?

The basic point is that in order to be able to make informed decisions we must be informed. And a footballer's right to privacy means that his house cannot be bugged by journalists, it shouldn't mean that his mistress cannot tell all if she chooses.

Super-Injunction Arguments

From the BBC News an argument against super-injunctions:

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.