Super-Injunction craziness

Okay, enough is enough, I just can't follow these super-injunctions. To my mind they seem inherently illogical.

So far as I understand it, an injunction is a legal requirement to not talk about something. Okay, think I have that. To make a simple example, let's say I went to the pub this lunchtime and stayed there all afternoon.  I don't want people knowing that, so I get an injunction. Okay, now nobody can talk about me being down the pub this afternoon. Except, they *can* still say "we're not able to tell you where Mike was this afternoon."  Well, that will just lead to suspicion won't it? So I take out a super-injunction and that means you can't even say, that you can't say what I was doing this afternoon.

But what happens now, when I go out this evening? Somebody asks me where I was this afternoon (someone who doesn't know I have an injunction out - how can they, anyone who *does* know what I was up to can't speak about it; nor can they say that they can't speak about it). So let's say that 'Fred' who wasn't there, and doesn't know about the injunction, or super-injunction, innocently asks, "where were you this afternoon?" Now, I can't say anything, and anyone who knows anything can't say anything. And Fred is utterly baffled by the silence. So he spends the rest of the evening asking other people whether they knew what I was up to this afternoon. And he's either met by silence (from those who know about the super-injunction), or is joined in his bafflement by anyone else he meets who also doesn't know about the super-injunction.

Now, are all those people breaking the super-injunction? As they can't find out about it, how do they know they are breaking it? And *are* they breaking it? They say that 'ignorance of the law is no defence' but this isn't ignorance of the law; but ignorance of what you can't talk about (or 'publish' as I think the injunctions are against). Or would word of mouth "shush - you can't talk about that" be not breaking the super-injunction? As that isn't publishing?? Either way, I can't see how you can be prosecuted for talking about something that you don't know you shouldn't be talking about! That sounds like madness.

Okay, now on to the world of publishing and a real example. I say "real example" - but I of course can't tell whether there's a super-injunction about this or not - I can only guess.

My example comes from Heat magazine. I've just been to their gossip section and they are talking about the Arnold Schwarzenegger love-child story. Okay, given that this is published, I guess there isn't a super-injunction about it. But can I be certain? Have I just broken it by publishing this blog? Has Heat?  "No" I hear you say, "Heat Magazine will have been told who the super-injunctions were about to avoid just this happening". Oh ... so if you are a publisher of content you are told somehow (not be email or fax I bet ... it would be strictly word-of-mouth of course). Similarly for the BBC, ITV, SKY, Times, Guardian, and so on and so on, I assume. If not then they could end up like 'Fred' above, breaking the super-injunction (or not, I am confused about whether Fred did or didn't) by accident.

All right. So if you're a publisher you get told, so that you don't break the super-injunction. Okay. I have it now.

No. Wait a minute. I thought the Twitter peeps could be in trouble (both the company, and the users - and bloggers, et al) because apparently the law sees internet content as publishing. You aren't chatting to your mates, you are self-publishing to some degree. Well, hang on a second then, if I'm a publisher then I (surely) must be granted the same grace against accidentally (possibly) breaking the super-injunction as every other publisher. Someone needs to let me (and every other internet publisher) know about these super-injunctions so we can avoid publishing anything about them. Yes? That makes sense doesn't it? That's logical. If not, then given I can't in any way know for sure who the super-injunctions are about, I can only avoid any possible issues, by not talking about anyone. And suddenly the internet is a very quiet place where only the sanctioned few, in the know, can publish content.

So, as a publisher of content, I demand to be told who the super-injunctions are about, then I will ensure I don't talk about them. If I don't have access to that information, you're either saying "you're not a publisher" - and if I'm not, then the injunctions don't apply to me - or you're not giving me the same information other publishers have to enable them to avoid legal consequences, and that is an unfair situation which would prove a ridiculous basis on which to take legal action.

[in order to speed up spread of the super-injunction information I suggest that whoever needs to, sets up a Twitter account, and all other Twitter members can follow them, and hence find out who they cannot Tweet about. That sounds efficient and sensible]

---------------------------------------------------------------

Look, even if Twitter *knew* who had the SI's out, how could they tell Twitters who tweet about them to stop tweeting about them without breaking the SI's????