UK Continues To Censor The Press: Orders Wall Street Journal To Pull Details From Already Published Story

from the no-freedom-of-the-press dept

The UK's issue broad injunctions that try to silence the press from naming names of people accused of crimes. Given that, a court apparently ordered the Wall Street Journal to remove the names of bankers the WSJ had noted were expected to be named as being involved in the criminal manipulation of the LIBOR rate:
A British judge ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper's European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government's ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.

The order, which applies to publication in England and Wales, also demanded that the Journal remove "any existing Internet publication" divulging the details. It threatened Mr. Enrich and "any third party" with penalties including a fine, imprisonment and asset seizure.
Except, as the Journal notes, it had already published the story out on the wire, and while it took down its own web story, and is protesting the injunction, it's not at all difficult to find other stories that published the names:
In Friday’s U.S. edition of the newspaper, 11 names were printed, including former UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) trader Tom Hayes; his former boss at UBS, Michael Pieri; and two former brokers at R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd., Terry Farr and James Gilmour.
And, of course, anyone who got the print version, which had already gone to press, could see the names as well:
And, in the end, all this has really done is draw that much more attention to the names.

Filed Under: censorship, freedom of the press, injunctions, libor, press, super injunctions, uk, wall street journal
Companies: dow jones


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    jameshogg (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:30pm

    Here in the U.K., we have just seen police officers lie about "pleb" comments while the IPCC does hardly anything to chase it up.

    But yet people are still deluded into thinking that similar independent regulation set up with the press will stop phone hacking... phone hacking that the police were complicit in. There is a reason why not as much fury is aimed at the police in relation to this issue: people do not want to admit the police have an independent body that keeps them "accountable". Need I even mention Hillsborough?

    And that is on top of the even more insane delusion that it will stop tabloid readers from engaging in their sadomasochistic drivel.

    You should have seen the way in which the Guardian's commenters were defending the royal charter in the articles (royal charter... ROYAL?! Fucking monarchy strikes again!)... a charter that would have put more pressure on the paper to be silent about Snowden's leaks on top of what they did to David Miranda. Their attitude is disgraceful.

    I really do wish our society would take the values of the First Amendment as seriously as you guys in the U.S. do, and actually fucking get a Constitution.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.