Private Lives

Super Injunctions, eh? Aren't they terrible, stopping the press from reporting the sordid details of the affairs of the rich and famous? But then again, don't they have a right to privacy? This sort of fatuous 'debate' is all I've bloody heard on the radio today. The problem is that it isn't the celebrities who are abusing the legal system by invoking these so-called super injunctions. In fact, I think that they're doing us all a favour by ensuring that their affairs can't be inflicted on the rest of us. You know, I don't really think that it's a triumph for the fight against censorship for someone on Twitter to reveal that Jemima Khan had used a super injunction to prevent the reporting of her alleged affair with Jeremy Clarkson, (which never happened, although if it had, I wouldn't blame Jemima Khan for wanting to keep it quiet, on grounds of taste, if nothing else).

But all this talk about privacy is diverting attention from the real threat posed by super injunctions. Whilst I really don't care about who is shagging who - in or out of wedlock - I am concerned about the use of these super injunctions by multinational corporations to prevent reporting about their misdemeanours. I find it worrying that in all the latest furore over super injunctions, the focus has been on celebrity privacy, rather than corporate gagging of the press. Have we really forgotten the events of eighteen months ago when a multinational not only obtained a super injunction to prevent reporting of its alleged dumping of toxic waste, but obtained another one to prevent The Guardian from reporting a parliamentary question about the previous injunction? Now, I'm a great believer in privacy, whether for celebrities or us mere mortals, (I've got a lot to hide), but I can't help but feel that this current focus upon the privacy aspect of super injunctions is part of an attempt to legitimise their use, in order to allow the multinationals and other shady organisations and individuals to keep abusing them. Of course, if the government was to actually introduce some kind of legislation framing the individual's right to privacy, then public figures would have no need to resort to super injunctions. Ironically, of course, one of the main opponents of such a privacy law, (on the grounds that it would restrict their freedom to report incidents which could be in the public interest), is the press - the very same press which currently complains about the use of super injunctions to restrict their ability to report on incidents which might be in the public interest...