The gagging injunction.

The press has exploded recently in light of recent super injunctions being carried out by celebrities. The Guardian, Observer (2011) published an article called Twitter and WikiLeaks have made a mockery of the courts, which suggests that the two organisations have published documents against court orders.

Peter Preston (the article’s writer) argues that because technology is ‘moving faster year by year’ it has made the ‘ultimate confrontation inevitable’ (Guardian, Observer, 2011). With relation to WikiLeaks this could connote that due to advances in technology it has made things increasingly easy for the site to distribute highly classified information. The article posits that WikiLeaks is an unstoppable force by writing; ‘But stop the leaks? There was – and still is – no way’ (Guardian, Observer, 2011).

An essay written by Professor Geoffrey Stone picks up on the notion that;

"Just as the law can no longer effectively deal with obscenity because of social and technological change, so too can it no longer deal with non-newsworthy invasions of privacy," he writes. "For all practical purposes", the defences of privacy "have been gobbled up completely." So, whether in Seattle or the Strand, we had "better learn to live with it". (Guardian, Observer, 2011)

This conveys that there is no longer any privacy within the media, and this is due to sites such as Twitter and/ or WikiLeaks who publish whatever they please. In light of the recent super-injunctions, concerning celebrities covering up their infidelity, one should ask whether this is really fair? Sites like WikiLeaks are just sticking to their basic human rights, which entitles them to freedom of speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/22/twitter-wikileaks-mockery-of-the-courts?INTCMP=SRCH