Pooper-scooper-injunction song
NSFW
I made this!
I made a song about the ridiculousness of injunction law. Unfortunately, by protesting the law, I think I broke it...
(
B3tan Housewife, Tue 10 May 2011, 22:31,
Reply)
Love it!
I can't think what else to say :-D
(
Herb Alpert's Taxi Driver I have very beautiful lips, Tue 10 May 2011, 22:37,
Reply)
Wouldn't your point be better made by posting details of your own sex life complete with a video of you wanking shot without your knowledge??
(
Jeffrey44 (User was banned for this post), Tue 10 May 2011, 22:40,
Reply)
*waits eagerly*
(
Herb Alpert's Taxi Driver I have very beautiful lips, Tue 10 May 2011, 22:48,
Reply)
That is my only paranoid delusion
that when I am having a wank, someone is filming me. Fucking frightening.
To watch I mean.
(
gaijintendo Regular Member, Tue 10 May 2011, 22:44,
Reply)
All these are great.
I wish I gave a shit about this stuff. I am actually quite happy for all these people to have fucked up personal lives.
Very informative though, given I hadn't been bothered to find out who were behind these stories.
(
gaijintendo Regular Member, Tue 10 May 2011, 22:46,
Reply)
Your work somewhat reminds me of
a popular combo called 'Man Like Me' and they make me smile they do and all and indeed www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHOAsCYJygA
(
unclepills Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think., Tue 10 May 2011, 23:25,
Reply)
I actually feel quite sorry for the comedian named.
I can't believe he's so wealthy that an injunction would be cheap to him, so it almost appears like a weird form of blackmail where the blackmailer makes no money, and he's actually ended up having more attention on the story by getting one.
(
monkeon schmonkeon, Tue 10 May 2011, 23:38,
Reply)
Excellent as ever.
I was watching some mumbo-jumbo about this today. Apparently it is all to do with privacy law over libel law, and their status in the EU. Under libel law, the paper would have to print a retraction and pay compensation. Under privacy law, the paper has to just pay a fine and costs, but no retraction and no compensation. Hence people trying to pre-empt libel (or sometimes not libel) with the injunctions using privacy law. The papers actually prefer this too. Or something. I wandered off and made toast.
(
TheSundaeLunch I'm a fucking shrub, alright?, Tue 10 May 2011, 23:40,
Reply)
I like the song, but the message is a bit lost on me.
Gag-orders are bad because they stop us from knowing who famous people are shagging? Seriously? I would have thought you'd focus on censorship on issues that actually are in the public interest.
Personally, I do plenty of things that I would hate to have my boss or my mum read about in the newspaper (but I don't think they are morally wrong and I am not ashamed of them).
(, Wed 11 May 2011, 12:28, Reply)
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)