Here's what I wrote about this earlier on Facebook:
I don't care about the celeb stories, that's just what has brought the issue of injunctions into the news. What i don't like is the way that someone with enough money is able to put a blanket gag on the media and make them criminally liable for mentioning a story of the payer's choosing.
It reached the height of ridiculousness when Carter-Ruck attempted to gag any mention of a discussion in parliament about Trafigura's *alleged* toxic waste dumping in the ivory coast. They were trying to use this law to stop British citizens from hearing what their own political representatives were saying on their behalf...
(
B3tan Housewife, Wed 11 May 2011, 13:16,
Reply)
Fair enough
Although, you can't get a gag-order unless the story in question involves a breach of your privacy, (or you are in the process of claiming so). It seems fairly reasonable to me that there would be some process by which you can attempt to prevent a story getting out that invades your privacy and has no public interest. If the story can be published while you are in the process of trying to prove that it breaks privacy laws, then there would be no point in taking any legal action at all.
The Carter-Ruck/ Trafigura injunction was a temporary one (as far as I can find out) that was to last until the trial had been concluded. Again, it seems pretty reasonable to me that you should allow companies to delay the publication of stories until the truth of them has been decided on in court. Such injunctions don't (and probably shouldn't) apply to parliamentary questions - as Carter Ruck found out.
It seems like a reasonably good idea to me to allow individuals and companies to delay the publication of damaging stories until the truth or the legitimacy of the story is settled in court.
I think the media dislikes this very much, because they would much rather be able to write whatever they want, and then sort it out through a libel case once the damage is done.
(, Thu 12 May 2011, 14:23, Reply)