Yes, I’m all for gagging. But not quite in the way wannabe Liberal Democrat councillor Holly-Ann Battye is.
Super-injunctions have been at the centre of the media recently. Big Brother girl Imogen Thomas provoked a flurry of headlines after she was unveiled as the secret love interest of a married footballer: He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Cue page after page of the BB beauty looking downtrodden and teary in skimpy clothes and outraged demands that the footballer, whoever he is, be revealed.
Most would happily support the fourth estate on this issue - but I am not one of them. Super-injunctions may strike at the very heart of the principle of freedom of press - that you are justified to print what you like - but there are some things that should remain private – private lives.
Journalist Andrew Marr has admitted to taking out a super-injunction to prevent his own dalliances being splashed in the press. Hypocrisy? Of course.
But while he has apologised for attempting to keep his affair of three years ago off the record, he admits there is no interest in it.
Despite lifting the lid, he said: "I also had my own family to think about, and I believed this story was nobody else's business. I still believe there was, under those circumstances, no legitimate public interest in it."
And do you know what? I agree.
While the public interest in Andrew Marr’s case would be his ‘do as I say, not as I do’ approach to interviews, with no questions allowed on his own life, is there really a hunger to know every finite detail of what exactly he got up to? I think the thought of this respectable journalist in the throes of passion is not something we really want etched in our minds.
Marr’s stated aim was to protect his children from public embarrassment. And why should a teenage son or daughter of a star face see their father or mother’s misdemeanours splashed across the press? It must be bad enough to go through such events in private, let alone under the harsh glare of the media spotlight too.
We assume as a media consumer that we have an all access pass to the lives of the rich and famous. Stars like Jordan and Kerry Katona have every minute of their lives documented and sold for personal gain, and it is understood that this is the game they and the media are playing. But should publicity-shy celebrities be subjected to the same laws as those who conduct their lives for the camera?
If a super-injunction seeks to protect details of the indiscretions of a footballer, or an actor, or a TV star, then what business is it of ours to know? Is it a sackable offence? Is it breaking the law? Is it hypocrisy?
If it’s none of the above, then what has it got to do with us? Why do we need to know? Is it for gossip’s sake or a legitimate reason?
People moan that celebs are buying protection from the law but last time I checked, adultery was legal, however immoral in our eyes. If the super-injunction applicant has broken the law I would feel differently.
Despite my media training, I don’t think that we really have a right to print stories about what-so-and-so likes to do with whatshisname behind closed doors. Sorry fellow journos, but it’s not fair game. Even if whathisname is also seeing thingamabob on the side.
Sex, be it with a wife, husband or mistress, is a personal thing. And I’m not even sure people care enough for it to merit its place in the newspaper.
Provided the super-injunctions aren’t allowing the rich to use a get out of jail free card for committing an illegal offence, then why should we care? Freedom of press should not extend beyond the bedroom threshold. Could a journalist be really happy to allow their love lives spread across an edition of some magazine or newspaper? We take for granted that we can live our lives without journos door-stopping us, or our latest squeeze/ex dishing the dirt of what it’s like to be with us. If this was your life and you had the opportunity to hold back certain info, would you do it?
Just because a person has acquired fame for their acting or singing, it doesn’t mean that we should rifle through their knicker drawers. It is irrelevant. Not everyone signed up to the celebrity package, with its terms and conditions saying you must give up your entire privacy. For most stars who have something to be famous for (sorry Jordan), the focus on their private lives is an uninvited intrusion. Most have reached their fame because of their talent, not their t*ts.
There are illegitimate uses of super-injunctions, such as the attempt by disgraced banker Fred Goodwin’s attempt to prevent identification as… a banker. When it’s in the public interest to know details of a specific case, judges shouldn’t be so ready to hand out super-injunctions. But stars’ flings must not be considered in the same category as affairs of state.
The sex lives of normal people are kept private by the media’s lack of interest in us. Why shouldn’t the famous have the same anonymity?
Injunctions may be ‘running out of control’ in some people’s eyes.
But some things should remain behind closed doors. Injunctions, whether or not we like them, are able to offer some basic privacy.
And if a super-injunction means that Andrew Marr’s sordid sex life is kept under wraps, I’m all for them!
Comments
scottspeig / April 27 2011 12:43pm
While I may agree with you on Marr's affair, what if the famous relies on their goody-two-shoes image in order to appeal/sell in which case, the public should know about it.
While there may be some reasons an injunction is given, it seems that they are given in too wide a reason - especially when you consider that an MP can get one (considering they want electing, everything about them should be known).
The reasoning behind the injunctions was to stop the press invading (photographing someone in hospital) but I fear they have gone too far.
Role-models need to be kept in check, or they are no good. If you are unaware of their sordid dealings, then it is a falsehood in them being a good role-model. People should know whether they are decent role-models or not, and if that requires them having affairs or drug habits or drink-driving splashed over the paper, then so be it.
IAN JOSEPHS / April 28 2011 11:24am
Who cares about celebrities sex lives? Surely the more important question is whether injunctions should be used to gag parents whose children have been taken by social services and later adopted by strangers with the agreement of establishment judges ?
RISK OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE” is a prediction of something that has no legal definition .Nowhere else in Europe can children be removed and subsequently adopted on such a flimsy pretext.Does anyone think those who look in shop windows should be arrested in case they go inside and shoplift?
Agreed that ,in this case Vicky spoke at a meeting in parliament,but it is still common practice for judges in family courts to specifically forbid parents to contact their MPs .
I feel sure that the intention of legislators of Article 8 was to maintain the integrity of the family against State interference,not to act as a gag to prevent public complaints against actions by the State designed to break up the family;
Sheer hypocrisy to pretend the privacy of a baby is being protected from its own parents when the real culprits being shielded are social workers and so called “experts” !
If the “SS” really cared about privacy for children they would not advertise toddlers complete with photographs and character descriptions in the Daily Mirror and other periodicals for potential adopters to pick and choose their selections like pedigree cats or dogs !
The idea that parents can be jailed for complaining publicly when their children are removed is abhorrent and happens nowhere else in Europe .Free speech for deprived parents was abolished by the Children Act 1989 and that section should now be repealed if we still wish to call the UK a democracy where there is freedom of speech !Just as bad is the fact that, parents are “punished without crime” by family courts that should know better !
David Frawley / April 28 2011 5:41pm
The trouble with the super-injunctions is the hypocrisy it allows. High profile, married individuals who have affairs are still allowed to be portrayed as saintly paragons of moral virtue, while in reality their reputation has been besmirched to the select few who know their identities. When I next hear of certain super-injunction applicants being described in fawning terms, I will reach for the sick bag.
Luke McGee / May 01 2011 9:03am
In my woefully uninformed opinion, the problem begins and ends with Britain not having very sturdy privacy laws, and it's important that we fix this problem asap.
A few footballers and celebrities having their reputation tarnished is a small price to pay if it also means that we can reveal details of major corruptions from people behaving unethically.
Abby Dorey / May 02 2012 12:30am
While i agree with many if the points you made, (and believe me, i have no interest in picking up a paper to read who's shagged who this week) i don't agree that what celebrities get up to in their private lives should be hidden from the public.
Like it or not, celebrities have a responsibility as role models to society. Young children who dream of one day playing for England, should not be taught that it is ok to commit adultery, because the law will act like a babysitter and brush all the dirty secrets under the rug.
Yes, everyone has done things they are ashamed of, but celebrities simply can't pick and choose what they want written about them, provided that the allegations against them are true.
The law is not designed to protect commercial interests!!!