UK Injunction Process Revised To Better Fit The Realities Of Internet Communication

Free Speech

from the "stfu-internet"-is-not-a-valid-command dept

As the fallout continues from the newly-minted "Giggs effect", UK’s Parliament has rushed into the breach, trying desperately to shut down the entire internet on behalf of one philandering footballer.

When MP John Hemming uttered the player’s name aloud in Parliament, pointing out the "impractibility" of arresting 75,000 Twitter users, it was assumed that the injunction was off and the UK media free to publish Giggs’ name and extracurricular activities.

However, this was reversed the very next day. Mr. Justice Tugendhat issued a ruling stating that although the injunction had failed to shut the internet up, it still served a purpose to prevent Giggs and his family from intrusion or harrassment. How exactly this injunction is supposed to prevent anything remains a mystery, unlike the identity of the original Man with No Name, Ryan Giggs.

Tugendhat’s ruling has been examined by Parliament and found to be lacking. In fact, it was their opinion that the entire "injunction" process was "badly in need of an overhaul".

The following statement* has been issued:

In light of recent events, Parliament has determined the injunction process is in need of revision.

As the events of the past few days have shown, once the information reaches the internet, there is no way of retrieving it. In this era of lightning-fast communication and group coupon utilization, it is unrealistic to expect that any such injunction process will prevent the spread of sensitive information.

As our main concern still lies with those who have filed a injunction in order to protect themselves from their own (and often, actionable) misdeeds, the Parliament has ratified (or whatever it is that we do here) the following changes to the injunction process:

The internet today currently serves billions of people worldwide, nearly 50% of whom are either ‘wired in’ to various social networks or torrenting ‘The Hurt Locker’.

Considering the unimaginable amount of potential superinjunction violators, as well as the incredible difficulty of placing said violators under arrest (not to mention the intricacies of multiple countries’ extradition laws), Parliament has determined that the simpler course of action would be to remove the ‘victim’ of this sort of exposure.

Any citizen filing for an injunction will be remanded to our custody and transported to a location where internet service is extremely limited. Like Burkina Faso. Or 1993.

It is hoped that this action will prevent the injunctioner from being haunted by his own actions and free him from possible harrassment. Spouses who have not yet filed for divorce will be delivered to this "internet-free zone" within 48 hours of the first damning ‘Tweet’, often accompanied by a lawyer.

The trial run of this new process is underway. Giggs has been remanded to the custody of Sergeant Murtagh, who has repeatedly stated that he is "too old for this shit." Giggs is to remain sequestered for the next 90 days or until eclipsed by the next footballer scandal, whichever comes first.

*This is probably not true. At all. I had a rack of bad shellfish and spent the night suffering from mild hallucinations which I hoped to calm with the stately, measured tones of a BBC-Span** broadcast.

**This most likely doesn’t exist either.

Filed Under: injunctions, uk