The madness of British law

An alternative point of view might be that the newspapers have learned nothing new...

Is it something about a threesome?

Not so sure it is madness!!

Eg the right to privacy is both someone's human right and also quite important for civil liberties.

If one forgets it's a celebrity just for a moment.

Would you honestly want someone revealing all about your own private life. The individual may be a celebrity but their families and partner may not be.

Similarly law in the UK is different to laws in other countries which is a good thing. Just because this persons private life can be exposed elsewhere does that make it right and should therefore the UK law be changed to take away this individuals legal right.

Similarly in some countries the Gov has a lot more rights in info and how they can access that information on an individual .........should UK laws be changed to provide government and media that same access.



Personally I would hope not and especially when it seems the change is wanted so that we can know the name of someone who had a 3some

Fully understand that my point is when you change the law there are always consequences that you do not see in advance. Eg because it appears on Twitter or whatever is not a reason to change the laws that protect the individual. You cannot stop word of mouth etc either but again not a reason to change laws that protect the individual. You could of course impose more internet laws etc but not sure that is wanted but what is interesting is the fact that in say this case the Internet social media etc is being used to destroy someone's civil liberties and privacy. Which is kinda sad regardless of the individual or their celebrity status or the fact that it's a daft sex thing

i would very much doubt that these type of cases would qualify for legal aid etc and they are certainly used by the wealthy. However the privacy law is used in general on these things for daft reasons but there can be other reasons for restrictions as well. Not necessarily all sex and drugs for celebs. Cheap law is not gen available in these types of cases however the lack of funding or the cost etc is not a reason to change the law. Could it be made more accessible to the poorer is a seperate conversation in my view

Eg it is the media that actually is promoting this change in the law because it suits them. Regardless of the consequences of changing the law. Yet if you asked the same media about naming sources etc they are much keener privacy than you think.

Eg If Banksy was not wealthy and was the director say of housing for Bristol County Council. But painted illegally under the name Banksy. I think he should be able to stop someone saying he is Banksy in the Sun and causing him to be sacked. Etc. might not e all over social media but could make the Sun. They may only have assumptions rather than proof etc. Bad example but another use of the law (I think!!)

Or say Jo Brooks or Steve Laz say they want to name him. I think he has the right to stop it

Censorship by judicial process ..... Sorry but you sound like the Daily Mail.

You cannot say have the law for this version but not for that it does not work that way.

Cannot believe people on here are so keen to give away civil liberties and rights.

Yes this is a daft case who cares. That is not a reason to change the law.

These laws were not made to protect celebraties at times they maybe used that way but it is not there only use regardless of what the Sun or Daily Mail says. Your rights and civil liberties are hard to come by so should not be given away easily. This is not censorship of the press.

tartarus

Actually your wrong the cost of the legal system is actually irrelevant. If you want to alter legal benefit that as mentioned is a seperate issue.

This right stems from the 1998 Humanrights act are there other bits of that you wish to remove or make it easy for the Daily Mail or the social media to remove.

All legal issues in the UK involve costs. These are termed super injunctions but they and the law also defends your right to an injunction.

Yes this case is a daft example but proof it's not gagging is the Terry case where he was turned down.

The human rights law is there to protect citizens of Europe not just the UK celebs so its removal and non adherence has many consequences.

Actually the opposite.......

What your saying is if the legal system was cheaper they would be ok. Which implies your only rejection is based on cost.

But as mentioned the cost of the legal system in the UK is a seperate issue. Note super injunctions only refer to the reporting of injunctions already made by the court. It's designed to stop the gutter press taking the piss. Eg the only reason you have found out about this is the fact that the gutter press flouted the details by saying avail in American press or Twitter. So you looked in actual fact you are supporting the basic abuse of someone's legal human rights.

Easy to say he or she does not deserve those rights......mmmmmmwhere have I heard that before

Yep but most ordinary people do not need a super injunction because not of interest.

But ordinary people request injunctions all the time as do their lawyers in say domestic abuse rape cases etc etc. A super injunction is only required when describing the injunction could lead to the persons identity.

Although not noted if removed it also creates problems for those inflicted on so they should have the right to protection.

Now these daft celebrity cases highlight some issues but not enough to change the human rights law in my opinion. The same law also affects people in different countries who have different versions of human rights. This issue is created by the European Human Rights law not UK judges

Unlike many I do not care if the sun or daily mail cannot say who shagged who. Especially when for them todo so would mean a court injunction being flouted in the gutter press to sell a couple of extra copies.....,. Next naming a rape victim will be ok in their view..... No thx ....... May be an exaggeration .....but do you trust the press.

Look how they are flouting the law here!!!

Surely your complaint should be with the media then and not the law. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the law this is a Human Rights Law. Being flouted for nothing really. There are lots and lots of reasons to flout human rights laws by gov, media and gov controlled media........which is why there is human rights laws and why your lucky to live in a country that supports them......my advice is do not throw that away for Mr Murdoch to sell a few extra copies!!!!

On that note I'm out!!

The underlying norms about privacy and freedom of expression so fundamentally differ between the US and the UK that any cross-country dialogue requires a lot of first-principles unpacking that is probably not well-suited to an internet message board on art (and is just one of the many reasons I have no real position as to the particulars of this discussion).

But, one concept that undergirds the American approach (and seems to be implicitly operating in some of the disagreements above) is a presumption that the balance of interests at play differs for public figures as opposed to private individuals. The American approach essentially assumes that---partly as a normative ethical principle---(a) public figures have lessened expectations of privacy and (b) the actions of public figures are more likely to be of legitimate public concern.

For posterity, despite edit.