BBC Journalist Admits He Took Out Super Injunction
from the disgrace dept
We’ve been discussing the ridiculously anti-free speech super injunctions in the UK, which block the press or anyone from reporting on certain things (even if factual). What’s amazing is how frequently these seem to be used by famous people in the UK, basically, to avoid being embarrassed by their own actions (having an affair seems to be a big one). Most of the folks in the press seem to find these quite ridiculous, which is why it’s surprising to many to find out that the BBC’s Andrew Marr took out one such super injunction himself a few years back to avoid having details come out about an affair he had with another journalist. The only reason it’s come out now is that he’s admitting he’s “embarrassed” that he got the super injunction in the first place. As others point out, it’s pretty hypocritical as a journalist to then seek to censor other journalists.
Mr Hislop, who has twice challenged Mr Marr’s super-injunction, said: “As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist.
Filed Under: andrew marr, free speech, hyperinjunction, injunction, uk
Companies: bbc
Comments on “BBC Journalist Admits He Took Out Super Injunction”
Still, we have to give him (belated) props for admitting that he did it. Not like certain people who shall remain nameless for legal reasons.
Parliamentary priviledge v super injunctions?
One thing that puzzles me is MPs can mention these injunctions in parliament without sanction, since what they say in parliament is somehow protected (IANAL so I don’t understand the intricacies). For example Trafigura dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast came out because an MP asked a question about it despite an injunction.
So, why doesn’t an MP simply ask a “question” once a month which lists all the new super-injunctions taken out? That would rapidly end the practice. Good luck to the celebrities in persuading parliament to end parliament’s free speech priviledges!
Going to email my MP tonight.
Re: Parliamentary priviledge v super injunctions?
That’s mostly because Parliamentary Privilege exempts MPs from most criminal wrongdoing (up to a point, as the recent jailings of MPs for defrauding the Treasury have shown).
The most interesting bit about this article is the unrelated “contra mundum” injunction that was issued last week, which is nothing short of amazing. A British judge declares the world gagged. The hubris is staggering.
Re: Re:
Yep, and the funniest thing is, most of the people in the know know exactly who it is. They shall remain nameless for family reasons (the superinjunction has nothing to do with it).
Faster than a speeding censor
More powerful than a law
Able to leap tall rights in a single bound
It’s super-injunction!
He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.
I’m really surprised some site hasn’t popped up yet that just reports on all these ‘super injunctions’.
Or has it…
#superinjunction on Twitter makes superinjunctions pointless.