Let's have a thread about the gagging order on reporting parliament because everyone else has one and we wouldn't want to be thought of as shirking our internet responsibilities.

Yeah, that's what I meant - you might seek an injunction to prevent further repeats of a libel because of the harm it'd cause you. Then the reprinted would risk damages AND contempt of court. The law is getting itself into dreadful trouble with every new development in this area - it'll need major reforming sooner rather than later.

I don't think the media is even allowed to refer to the existence of an injunction re: the Marr thing, or at least that was the case before.

PE had a bit of an ongoing beef with that, and I think mentioned it again in their recent article about the similar situation w/ Trafigura/Carter-Ruck

OK I see now (xp to myself). Marr tried to get an injunction vs. anyone even mentioning that he had tried to get injunction vs. anyone even mentioning that he had tried to get injunction vs.anyone even mentioning that he had tried to get injunction vs...etc. But failed.

Googling their names turns up amazing vitriol on the interwebs about him and her, I never knew people hated them so much.

xp to MPx4A - seems you can mention it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/richard-ingrams/richard-ingrams-week-you-try-challenging-an-editor-armed-with-a-writ-856105.html

Hehe yeah, was just reading Alice Miles' contentious Wiki history. Vaguely remembered that PE had maybe stripped away one or two of the outer layers of kafkaesque secrecy about it.

Newsnight is apparently being sued as part of this? May actually explain the complete silence from the BBC this morning.

The BBC finally get round to a story and it's all about twitter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm
Which doesn't seem quite right to me.

Haha, great minds think alike, etc.

Paxman's got to pay

The Newsnight action is mentioned here.

I think that generating a big Twitter/internet furore was exactly what the Guardian was attempting in the first place, and that's probably the BBC covering it's arse by covering the coverage rather than the toxic waste story itself.

from that bbc article: "ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction."

so carter-ruck only needed one injunction to shut everyone up!

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/BBC_deletes_important_story_on_toxic_waste_dumping_in_the_Ivory_Coast_after_legal_threats%2C_12_Dec_2009