Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

Daniel Law/PA Archive/Press Association Images
SUPER-INJUNCTIONS

Twitter used to break super-injunctions but stars deny claims

The user claimed to “out” a number of celebrities and UK public figures via the social networking website but some of those named have already issued denials.

A TWITTER USER has tried to unmask some of the celebrities who have allegedly obtained super-injunctions to prevent mainstream media from publishing intimate and potentially embarrassing details about their private lives.

The user claimed to “out” a number of celebrities and UK public figures via the social networking website, reports the BBC, but some of those named have already issued denials.

The human rights campaigner and sometime journalist Jemima Khan has already tweeted to insist that rumours of her having a super-injunction in place to prevent publication of “intimate” photos of her and Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson are not true:

Twitter used to break super-injunctions but stars deny claims
1 / 7
  • Jemima Khan Tweets 1

  • Jemima Khan Tweets 2

  • Jemima Khan Tweets 3

  • Jemima Khan Tweets 4

  • Jemima Khan Tweets 5

  • Jemima Khan Tweets 6

  • Jemima Khan Tweets 7

An intense debate has been underway in Britain over the use of super-injunctions with as many as 30 reported to have been taken out by well-known public figures.

Already the television presenter Gabby Logan has issued a denial that she had an affair with colleague and former England football captain Alan Shearer as had been speculated about online.

An MP has told the Daily Mail that the way in which the internet has been able to name some of those allegedly involved in court battles proves the “utter absurdity” of what is being done in the courts.

“It ignores the way modern communication works,” John Hemming told the paper.

Last month it was reported that editors of Wikipedia were on high alert after users edited the entries of high-profile celebrities to name them as being behind the gagging orders.

The legal difficulties surrounding the spate of super-injunctions in Britain have likely been a result of the fact that the country does not have an official constitution.

It does however incorporate the European Human Rights Act into law meaning that those who have taken out super-injunctions have been able to use the legislation that is in part designed to protect an individual’s right to privacy.

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.