What do Max Mosley, William and Kate, Jeremima (yes, that’s what I’m calling the alleged union of Jeremy Clarkson and Jemima Khan) and The Guardian have in common? A spate of super-injunctions, one naughty Twitter account and a European court case are once again forcing us to ask: should the Press be free to publish what it likes, or should individual privacy reign supreme? When celebs cry ‘Leave us alone!’ we all too often yell back: ‘You brought it on yourself!’ After all, if the likes of Kerry Katona and Katie Price were really interested in a quiet life, ITV2 would have folded long ago. But are we being too harsh on these distraught divas? Should the choice to make a living from being a famous face really be taken as a surrendering of all right to privacy? While never having watched a Price documentary, I’m assuming there are moments even Jordan would rather her viewers weren’t privy to. Even if they show the Brazilian waxes, surely they cut to commercials when she goes for a Hollywood?
The Royal Honeymoon destination is no longer a secret...
This is to say nothing of famous people with a more genuine interest in staying out of the limelight. Along with half of the world I was glued to the screen on April 29th when two rather privileged young people tied the knot (and one sister-of-the-bride set the Twittersphere a-flutter). But I wasn’t exactly pleased to find out that their honeymoon destination had been leaked by a member of the evidently PR-hungry Seychelles tourism board. My first instinct was: ‘Oh leave them alone.’ A couple normally under such scrutiny deserve to escape the attentions of the paparazzi for a few days at least. And spare a thought for poor Max Mosley. Surely the right to privately hold allegedly Nazi-themed co-ed gatherings is intrinsic to our British freedoms? Hmmm.....
Does Max Mosley have a point?
Max Mosley just lost his latest case at the European Court of Human Rights. Speaking to a more than usually sardonic Paxman on Newsnight, he explained that he had wanted the Press to warn the subjects of a revelation before making it. Perhaps this could be taken as a reasonable courtesy. The footballer about to have his away goals made public, could endeavour to steal his fiancée’s Sun the next day, and the Lib Dem MP with a penchant for male escorts might contrive some way of distracting his wife’s attention from her morning perusal of The Independent. Or they might even use the advanced notification to plead domestic forgiveness. Either way, it’s not a fear of missing out on news of infidelities and improprieties that worry me about the rise of the super-injunction.
Super-injunctions, Big Business and the hyper-injunction
The judge at the European Court of Human Rights feared a ‘chilling effect’ on the freedom of the press, if the gagging went ahead. While the world is hardly a better place for the Jeremima rumours, sometimes spilling the beans is the right thing to do. For example in 2006, when oil company Trafigura dumped over 500 tonnes of toxic waste into the sea near Abidjan, Ivory Coast, causing illness to thousands of local residents. The company later tried to silence The Guardian from reporting discussion of the affair in Parliament.
The fact is that large corporations can get super-injunctions just as easily as B-list celebrities. And the news they want to cover up may have real and potentially global significance. And it gets worse. Injunctions outlaw discussion of a topic; super-injunctions ban discussion of both the topic and the fact that an injunction has been passed. As if that weren’t enough, the hyper-injunction goes a step further by banning discussion even with MPs, lawyers and journalists. Is it just me, or does all this judicial shrouding of silence with silence seem sinister and menacing?
It's not just the economy that looks like 1984
At times like these, Orwellian allusions are clichéd but indispensable. I can’t help but be reminded of the government’s cunning plan, in 1984, of doing away with opposition by removing the vocabulary with which people express it. Being rendered incapable not only of talking about something, but also of talking about the fact that we can’t talk about it, seems a little too Big Brotherly for my liking. That’s why I’m grateful for the Twitter account that threatened to make a ‘mockery’ of super-injunctions. What we need now is some clear legislation on the issue, and a continued respect for freedom of the Press.
In the meantime, check out this hilarious list of the world’s top five superinjunctions.
No comments:
Post a Comment