Apparently, and I do not want to start sounding like Perez Hilton – or as he is known in my house Perez Fucking Hilton – but some celebrity types have been doing things that they should not be doing with people that they should not be doing it with. Love vaugeness in blogs. Anyway, these famous people when they discovered it was going to be in the tabloids for the next month or so they went to the Courts and slapped what is known as a Super Injunction on the press. Basically, the Press are not allowed to report what they have found out/ listened in to. This divides in to two Areas Of Interest ™:
Firstly, is it in the public interest to be told which over paid sports stars, actors or “personalities” are cheating on thier husbands and wives. Surely, it is a matter between the couple and the third party. Also, do people really give a shit? I only became intrigued when they said I couldn’t know. It is a bit like when Clarkson was accused of cheating; it came out in the press and I, and several others I know, couldn’t give a shite. So due to apathy and a persons right to privacy then it is right to keep it quiet.
Secondly, what about Freedom of the Press? Granted they basically report shite. But is it not in the best interest of all if they are allowed to print stories (as long as they are not bascially made up). Surely then, if you are in the public eye and it is your living to be in the public then if you misbehave then it should be reported. If they are not allowed to report on the private lives, and it is always the sex lives, of “stars” then what happens when there is a story that really needs to be reported, like a misguided invasion of a Middle Eastern country?
Then there is the internet. Although the injuctions run to the papers, websites and in one instance THE REST OF THE WORLD, it doesn’t seem to run to social media networks. Where the rumour mill is working in overdrive. So this makes me wonder, what is the point of the Super Injunction when it is leaked almost instantly?
They can have all of these court powers yet it gets out anyway and instead of being able to publically confirm or deny what is being said, their silence will act as confirmation of guilt. If, indeed, there is any guilt to place.
The social media networks, such as Twitter and blogs et al, have replaced the coffee houses and pubs for people to exchange rumour and “fact”. Is this a natural evolution or is it something new? I believe it is a natural transistion as people become more web orientated, they have access to more information than before and stories such as these spread faster than ever before possible.
It could, of course, turn out that the names being mentioned are incorrect and what have you. Probably not though. And a story that could have been forgotten quickly will instead drag out for months and once the injunction is lifted will become an even bigger mess.