Wednesday, 11 May 2011

A well-known blogger has alluded on Twitter to several celebrities whom he claims have obtained super-injunctions to prevent the media from publishing stories on their private lives.

A well-known blogger has alluded on Twitter to several celebrities whom he claims have obtained super-injunctions to prevent the media from publishing stories on their private lives.

A day after Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said the microblogging site was ‘making a mockery’ of privacy laws, a high profile user today named a number of personalities whose names have been circulated online as the row over super-injunctions grows.

The Twitter user, who has one of the most popular blogs in his field of expertise, mentioned several footballers, entertainment personalities and businesspeople in a series of tweets that could have large legal ramifications

Today’s tweeting by the blogger again showed the futility of privacy laws to prevent celebrities’ private lives being discussed online.

While personalities have been able to gag the press from reporting personal matters, the super-injunctions have little effect on social networking sites.

Between 30 and 40 privacy injunctions and super-injunctions are in force.

There has been public outrage over privacy injunctions, some of which, so-called super-injunctions, are so draconian that it is a crime even to mention that they exist.

Premier League club officials are understood to have held a meeting last week to discuss the impact on football’s reputation of the large number of privacy gags given to players.

The flurry of tweets came after TV presenter Gabby Logan admitted her frustration over false rumours about her private life being circulated on Twitter.

The 38-year-old host of the BBC's Final Score said: 'My name was brought into this mess with someone else, accusing me of something which is clearly not true and the newspapers knew this and they published a story saying it wasn't true, but it is happening because super-injunctions are in place and people are trying to guess who is involved.'

0 comments: