Home Menu

Site Navigation


Notices

Serious Debates & News Debate and discussion about political, moral, philosophical, celebrity and news topics.

Register to reply Log in to reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11-05-2011, 03:33 PM #11
Omah Omah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tralfamadore
Posts: 10,343
Omah Omah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Tralfamadore
Posts: 10,343
Thumbs up Foreign papers not affected by UK injunctions

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23121827/

Quote:
FOREIGN papers are now naming the celebrities who have taken out gagging orders in Britain – making a further mockery of the law.

Several published the name of the married Premier League *footballer who cheated on his wife in a six-month fling with Big Brother beauty Imogen Thomas.

A Spanish newspaper published a piece saying: “People in the UK bet on almost anything and this time they have bet on the name of the football player and dad unfaithful to his wife with the *ex-girlfriend of Jermain Defoe. (Player named) is the bookies’ favourite. They say there’s no smoke without fire.”

A Peruvian paper also had an article saying: “In the UK they’re casting doubt over the faithfulness of (player named).” Italian media also revealed his identity.

Several innocent people, including TV presenter Gabby Logan and celebrity *political activist Jemima Khan, have already being caught up in the fallout of the controversial orders after being wrongly identified on Twitter as having affairs.


Superinjuctions shot down in flames ..... private lives of "protected" celebrities exposed worldwide ......

Americans are bemused that famous people in the UK are able to stop the publication of details of their private lives, because it goes against one of their country's founding principles, free speech.

Quote:
The US has a booming industry in entertainment, gossip and celebrity publications, mainly based in New York and Los Angeles.

None of them need to worry much about injunctions.

The equivalent in the US would be something called prior restraint, but there are very few successful examples.

"The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and courts are very, very reluctant to prohibit somebody from saying something," says Steven Wagner, a litigation lawyer at Wagner Davis in New York.

Last edited by Omah; 11-05-2011 at 03:35 PM.
Omah is offline  
Register to reply Log in to reply

Bookmark/share this topic

Tags
agree, injunctions, privacy


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

"Big Brother and UK Television Forum. Est. 2001"

 

© 2023
no new posts