#SuperInjunction Free Press or Personal Privacy?
With the global adoption of social media over the past 5 years we have witnessed day on day, hour by hour the increase in users, followers and friends to over 200 million, and growing!
From the early days of Twitter (2006), being solely an SMS short code service used to update those that may "Follow" you about anything including you're eating habits, where you are right now and/or going or maybe your opinions on news stories the world has since gone social network crazy.
Twitter enjoys a membership base of 200 million users globally all of whom it seems can not live without the latest gossip.
It is our need to be informed, connected and/or be nosey that caused a media storm on the national news channels today 09/05/2011 (Sky News, BBC News).
The major UK news agencies reported on a self made Twitter account relating to #SuperInjunction 's and a host of celebrities whose stories must remain private as per the conditions of imposed Super-Inunction.
What is a Super-Injunction?
The term #SuperInjunction is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it. (Source Wikipedia)
On the one hand we have celebrities selling their souls to the media moguls, magazines, reality tv shows and tell all autobiographies in order to fuel their need to keep a high profile, boost sales and/or for the satisfaction of self security.
On the other hand, the very same celebrities insisting everybody deserves a right to personal privacy away from his/her's public life, this is mostly to protect themselves but also in some justified cases, innocent children, a spouse or friends from the embarrsment such an accusation may cause if a particular story is thrown in to the public domain.
Imagine a national news network breaks a story about a well known celebrity involving sexual harrasment at the workplace, the sacking of a long term employee for no officially stated reason and claims of sexual relations with one or more staff members over a period of 10 years.
Now imagine if you will, the news network in question broke that story naming the parties involved, only for the spouse, parents, children and friends to be the last to find out?
Now some of you may agree this type of story is "News Worthy"? The celebrity deserves what he/she gets, all repocussions are a result of the actions taken, rightfully or wrongly. We all have a right to a "Free Press" to keep control of our politicians everybody agrees scandals are not a place for our homes, where the story affects our own lives either directly or by proxy!
What if the "News Worthy" story was actually false? But the truth didnt raise its head early enough before ruining the career, mariage, relationship, business and friendships that are perfectly stable before somebody, somewhere got it seriously wrong?
This is a debate that will divide the world into almost 50/50, im sure any comments below will reflect this. However somebody needs to take a sensible aproach to handling damaging, negative storires regardless of content in a professional and legal mannor especially where the accused denies the accusation.
Twitter account @InunctionSuper was created less than 24 hours ago and already has 30,000 followers, 90% of whom are located in the UK. Why?
The creator is allegedly one Billy Jones, at this stage it is not known if Mr. Jones is a real name, rather it is more than likely an alias. It is however suggested the hidden face behind the account is a member of the legal community with access to the documentation and judgments of certain cases where public figures have won the right of a super-injunction and instead of keeping to the terms of the injunction, released the details of household celebrities private lives and the stories they intended to keep secret.
Nobody other than the celebrities involved know the full legitimacy of any Super-Injunction claims however regardless of accuracy the debate on personal privacy, not since the late 90's, has ever been as hot & current.
Personally im not in favour of invading an individuals personal life, where the content of a story does not directly nor in-directly affect my own. That said however i can see a case for ensuring the general public is kept informed of any stories that may affect the stature of a celebrity, keeping check on a politicians moral and role model responsibilities for example.
I did not mind Bill Clinton having "Sexual Relations" with his campaign aide Monica Lewinsky. I did however object to his lying about the relations to his national constituents in a blatent attempt to cross his fingers and hope the case dissapeared. We all know the results of such a mis-judgement however few would argue Bill Clinton's presidential decisions were in any way affected or influenced by a quickie in the oval office.
Also Richard Bacon, once an aspiring childrens television presenter lost his job after it was revealed the partial toot of cocaine when on London drink and drugs sessions was more than a regular past time.
Mr Bacon lost had his career stripped from him and was publically humiliated as a concequence.
We all know of our favourite "Rock Stars" flying around the world pumping more class A checmicals in to their systems and nobody batters an eye lid. Well frankly the case with Richard Bacon is very different, a role model to millions of children that religiously watched his popular national TV show (Blue Peter), the very same audience that were just about old enough to understand drugs were bad yet not old enough i would suggest to read a national news paper after polishing off their weetabix in the morning.
This is an example of the private lives of public figures certainly being "News Worthy" and the news agencies assuring safety of our children. Sceptics will certainly say it sells papers too.
I am never somebody who likes to sit on the fence, however i am an advocate of a sensible comprimise, where such a comprimise exists. At the present time any citizen with the financial backing (rarely available on legal aid) can impose an outright ban on the publishing of a story that might harm or influence a change to an individuals life, and this is backed up by the highest legal assurances the UK can offer. Where granted, news networks are not allowed to print, refer to or even suggest the names of involved parties or "accidentally" refer their audience to any such evidence which may make it easy or obvious to research the claims themselves.
This protects the democratic right of the individual(s) involved and keeps any story under wraps for the duration of the Super-Injunction. Thats the law folks, we must accept it.
It seems necessary to impose super-injunctions at times and the examples above show why this topic is the center of such hot debate by not only the famous, incredibly rich and the powerful, but also the every day citizen, your neighbour or work collegue. I fully support the Super-Injunction when granted to protect the lives of individuals or when the case has absolutely no affect on the job role, title or public service.
I also believe in a free press, to an extent. Think of it as a semi-free or moderated press. I know that is a contridiction in terms but hear me out.
Everybody holds the right to a private life. I would like to see every legal case in the country automatically granted a Super-Injunction to protect not only the accused but sometimes more importantly the acuser!
Instead of publishing a story to the millions where the public makes their own mind up before a trial or conviction, lets give everybody the benefit of the doubt while erring on the side of caution as to not sabotage the personal lives of the innocent. Upon the successful conviction of the accused the press have free will to report on the documented and proven facts of the case.
However if the accused is found to be exhonerated of any crime we must allow the individual to either continue with life as an innocent person(s) and/or give that person(s) the right to go to the press with the story for their own reasons if the need suits.
Want further evidence of where an automtic Super-Injunction would have worked?
Remember TV's Ulrika Jonsson? In 2002 her auto-biography suggested she was raped by a well known television personality, however no names were put forward as to the rapist. It was well rumoured within the industry John Leslie might be the individual Jonsson referred to. The handsome (to some) scottish presenter for "This Morning".
Matthew Wright (The Wright Stuff) "Accidentally" mentioned Leslie's name on air (despite a gagging order forbidding such an act), as a result a number of women came forward to make their own Rape allegations toward the TV Host, incidents that took place during the 90's.
John Leslie was instantly removed from his job, lost many so called close-friends and the entertainment industry turned its, at times pre-judged back, refusing to air a single program even remotely involving Mr Lesley. All of this before the charge reached a british court of law.
In fact it took 12 months before John Lesley was able to clear his name publically, the rape charges not only failed to find a guilty verdict but the presiding judge expressed his own deep concerns in one case about the legitimisy of the accuser ever actually meeting the celebrity.
12 months was a little too late and the evidence suggests the aspiring public figure lead his life in a perfectly acceptable and proper way only to have his hard working career stripped away over the yet to be proven claims of another.
It should be noted Ulrika Jonsson has never named John Leslie as her rapist however this is an example of our Free Press taking a story a little too far.
Let us continue to be sensible and bring to public attention stories that affect public figures only after the story has been credited by more than one party and agreed upon by the courts of our land. We must remain proud and fully trust our legal system, if we to pick and choose what is a story and what isnt a story based on the number of newspapers, viewers or listeners we lose out in the fight to protect the characters of every human being based on what could be without any supported foundation what so ever!
You can follow me on twitter @deargobartuin or consider following my Twitter list @deargobartuin/SuperInjunction to stay up to date on the latest accusations and the celebrities involved.
CrunchBase InformationTwitter
Information provided by CrunchBase
yousharknotpass
pixelskylines
annaxmalina
theartofmadeline
vaporwave
jacobvanloon
discoholicmusic