I went on Sky News a couple of weeks ago to talk about the publishing of Baby Peter's killers' names on the internet - despite the court order banning naming them.

It took me about 2 hours of ripping, converting and crashing, but here I am (RSS readers: click through to the site to see it). Beware, I have a massive head. And I was in a pitch-black remote studio staring into a bright light, hence why I seem to be staring fixedly ahead ...:

A judge has finally lifted the reporting restrictions on revealing that Alfie Patten is not a dad at age 12 - the baby is some other kid's.

So what have we learned about reporting restrictions in the age of blogs? (Hint: they don't work, as the following timeline shows).

Timeline of reporting on Alfie

Google News breaches order

Martin Belam revealed almost straight away that Google news was breaching the terms of the reporting restrictions.

Bloggers hastily withdraw stories

Wordsdept.co.uk blogged about the story - then pulled it, saying: "Hopefully nobody noticed that until this morning I had a new post about the media’s coverage of Alfie Patten on this site. I really should have been aware that the reporting of new details of this case is forbidden thanks to a court ruling, something that was helpfully pointed out through the comments section."

Bloggers caught in catch 22 - system broken

I then pointed out that reporting restrictions don't really work for blogs, as there is no way for bloggers to know they exist (and if they don't know they exist, they're not bound by them): "Court orders forbidding publication of certain facts usually apply only to people or companies who receive them. This means there is nothing to stop bloggers publishing material that news organisations would risk fines and prison for publishing. Even if a blogger knows there is an order, and so could be considered bound by it, an absurd catch 22 means they can't found out the details of the order - and so they risk contempt of court and prison."

Mainstream news sites breach order

Then I revealed that Brand Republic and Walt Disney were breaching the terms of the order (presumably because they didn't know it existed - which means they weren't bound by it).

Shortly after that, I found ITV to be in breach of it. They did know it existed, but their auto-google-news box could easily be made to show headlines from non-UK news sites that revealed that Alfie wasn't the dad. I emailed ITV's legal department about this. Twice. They did nothing about it.

No one's told Google ...

Throughout the entire period, searching for Alfie Patten at Google would return headlines from foreign news sources revealing that Alfie wasn't the father.

It transires that the court order was never sent to google news, so they weren't bound by it: "We investigate removal requests based on court order violations once the court order (and the pages they want us to remove that allegedly infringe on the court order) have been brought to our attention," said a Google spokesman. "To date, we have not received a court order relating to [this] case."

(It also transpired that if you contact out-law.com about a story, they'll run the same story but without any link back to you. Boo).

Conclusion

So that was it. Throughout the whole period, searching for Alfie Patten at Google would return news stories from abroad that he wasn't the father.

Several sites published that fact while the court order was in force and took the story down only slowly (and only when I had tweeted it a lot, and several people pitched up to read my posts by email). It also appeared in several forums like this and this. There were others.

On the one hand, the reporting restrictions stopped widespread broadcast of the facts that were covered. On the other, anyone who wanted to find out the story could - and many people who didn't know there was a story covered by reporting restrictions would easily have come across it.

I'm not sure what the solution is - but I'm sure one aspect is a centralised database of reporting restrictions in general terms (ie not all the detail so it's like an issue of popbitch). Just what is the point of reporting restrictions if no one knows they exist?

ITV.com is the latest company seeming to breach a court order by publishing results of the DNA test of alleged 13-year-old dad Alfie Patten.

The court order came after the Mirror published the results last week. But ITV.com Seems to be breaching it with its enhanced web-search results (which are automatically supplied by Google), as this screenshot, taken on March 31, reveals.

Screenshot from the ITV.com search page

ITV.com breaching reporting restrictions on Alfie Patten's DNA test

It shows part of the ITV.com results page if you do a search for Alfie Patten at ITV.com - I've blacked out the words that reveal the results of the test.

What the court order says

The court order binds "all companies (whether acting by their directors, employees or agents or in any other way) who know that the order has been made" (and ITV will know as it's a member of the injunction alert service).

It refers to "results of a DNA test ... which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not to be published ... after the date of this order".

Automatic results from Google

ITV search box: enhanced by Google

ITV.com doesn't cover the DNA test anywhere on its site. But when you do a search at ITV.com, you get a panel with internet-wide results - supplied automatically by Google but part of the ITV page - as well as the results for ITV.com.

These results include foreign news sites NOT bound by the court order - and you can clearly see the results of the test in the headlines and URLs.

The news comes after the revelation that Google News is publishing the results, Walt Disney and Brand Republic were also doing so, and that the reporting restrictions didn't cover bloggers (or else they did but they weren't allowed to know this).

Yet another nail in the coffin of the current process of reporting restrictions?

The leaked DNA test on 13-year-old alleged dad Alfie Patten has revealed a big problem with court-ordered reporting restrictions and blogs.

Court orders forbidding publication of certain facts usually apply only to people or companies who receive them. This means there is nothing to stop bloggers publishing material that news organisations would risk fines and prison for publishing.

Even if a blogger knows there is an order, and so could be considered bound by it, an absurd catch 22 means they can't found out the details of the order - and so they risk contempt of court and prison.

Despite the obvious problem the Ministry of Justice have told me they have no plans to address the issue.

In this post I explain:

• What court orders say in general and in the Alfie Patten case.
• Why this means they don't usually apply to bloggers.
• What makes it impossible to find out about the order if you did know it exists.
• What this means for bloggers - and the individual case of one blog.
• What the Ministry of Justice and a lawyer say about it.
• And what needs to be done.

What court orders restricting reporting say

There is more than one court order in the Alfie Patten case. The one I refer to here was made when the Family Court  banned further publication of the results of the DNA test to discover if Alfie is a father. This came after mirror.co.uk reported the result last Wednesday - it, along with most other UK news sites, immediately took down the story after the court order was made.

Reporting restrictions like this follow a standard template, which has been agreed between representatives of the national media and the Official Solicitor and CAFCASS (the Family Court advisory service).

If you disobey this order

The penalties for breaching an order are clearly given: "If you disobey this order you may be found guilty of contempt of court and may be sent to prison or be fined or have your assets seized".

Who is covered - and why bloggers aren't

The order also sets out who is covered by it: "Who is bound: This order binds all persons and all companies (whether acting by their directors, employees or agents or in any other way) who know that the order has been made."

This is a big part of the problem. You are only bound by it if you know that it exists. There is a standard procedure for alerting most news organisations of a court order using PA's media lawyer service.

But the orders aren't automatically sent to anyone else or publicised. And so no one else is bound by them (although see below).

In particular, a blogger who picked up the initial Mirror story and repeated it would not be banned from doing so, unless they had seen the court order (which they generally wouldn't have done - unless one of the parties to the court order sent it to them).

What is banned - and why you can't find out

This is what the latest Alfie Patten order says: "Publishing restrictions: This Order prohibits the publishing or broadcasting in any newspaper, magazine, public computer network, internet website, sound or television broadcast or cable or satellite programme service of [the details of the reporting restrictions are then given in paragraph 3]."

Snippet from the Alfie DNA-test reporting restriction order

The reason I can't tell you the details is that the Order also says that "no publication of the text or a summary of this Order except for service of the Order ... shall include any of the matters referred to in paragraph 3 [ie the specific details of what you're not allowed to publish]".

And this is the other big part of the problem - there is no way of an ordinary blogger finding out the details of  the order, as the order bans publication of itself. You can't find out what you're not allowed to say. (Even news organisations who know an orders exists find it problematic to find the details.)

I spent at least an hour searching the internet for sufficient details of this particular court order to work out how to find out what it says. I found nothing. It was impossible to find out which court made the order or what it said.

It was only because I managed to get a copy of it from a national newspaper - something no ordinary blogger could do - that I know what it says (and am therefore bound by it!)

What this means for bloggers

When I first started looking into this, I assumed there would be some central database of reporting restrictions which explained in general terms what you could or couldn't report. No such database exists (although its been discussed for some time).

So there are two problems:

• Bloggers aren't bound by the order unless they know it exists.
• If they know it exists, they have no way to find exactly what it says - so they can't tell what they're allowed to say and what they aren't.

There is a logic to this - being allowed to publishing the specifics of the order would enable publishers to sidestep the ban on what you can report.

So what does it mean if you did want to write a story about something that might be covered by a court order?

A lawyer's view

I asked Struan Robertson, Legal Director at Pinsent Masons and editor of out-law.com, what all this meant for bloggers.

He agrees that "in this case the court has limited the effect of its Order to those who know that it has been made. Accordingly, it is for a party to the proceedings to spread word of the Order to minimise the risk of unwanted press coverage. While mainstream news organisations will be aware of the ruling, smaller websites and blogs may not know about it."

But he adds a note of caution - and a worrying one for bloggers who want to write about areas covered by reporting restrictions: "Bloggers can be caught by the law of contempt as being publishers - it doesn't just apply to mainstream newspapers. Therefore, as soon as they become aware of it, they should remove any postings, by themselves or their readers, that breach the terms of the Order - even if they know only the general purpose of the Order and not its exact detail." (My emphasis.)

Personally, I find this worrying - a system that stops people publishing facts, but makes it impossible to find out what they can and can't publish, is not a good one.

Case study: Martin Belam's Currybet blog

A post by Martin Belam on his Currybet blog shows the problem - he showed how Google News and Mirror.co.uk were still giving out the results of the DNA test, even though reporting of this was banned.

His post includes screenshots from Google News (showing headlines from non-UK news sources revealing the DNA results) and from the Mirror site (showing the page they replaced the story with - and which inadvertently still reveals the results).

I asked Martin whether he was worried he was breaching the reporting restrictions (and to be 100% clear, although I have seen the court order, he has not - I haven't sent him any details of it, and he does not know what it restricts the reporting of). This is what he said:

'I just have to guess, which is never the soundest legal footing'

"The problem for me as a blogger is that I haven't seen the reporting restrictions, nor do I know how I would go about applying to see them, so I just have to guess, which is never the soundest legal footing to be on.

"If you look very carefully at what I posted, I was very careful not to say anything definitive about the case myself. All I have done is to link to things and shown pictures of information that was already publicly available.

"So I believe that I've stayed on (just) the right side of the restrictions, by reporting the reporting, rather than reporting the facts. But, as I say, as I don't know what the restrictions say, I've no way of knowing.

"I've also moderated off a lot of comments that I think went too far in actually saying what the story was and directly commenting on it."

He knows there's a court order - but he's got no way of finding out what it says, so he's had to guess at what he can and can't say.

How the court order has affected me

Now that I've seen the order, I've amended the screenshots on my previous blog post, pointing out that Walt Disney and Brand Republic were probably breaching the terms of the court order, to hide some of the words.

I've also had to point out to one major UK newspaper site that one of their employee bloggers had inadvertently published restricted information in the link text to a US website (they've removed this now).

What the Ministry of Justice says

The Ministry of Justice could see the problem when I spoke to them. I asked how bloggers were supposed to find out what they can and can't say - and they said that, while they were looking into a database for journalists, there would not be one for bloggers to consult because of the "real problem" that it would reveal the very facts that were supposed to be being restricted.

The spokesman added: "It is the responsibility of those reporting cases ... to ensure that no reporting restrictions apply. The maximum penalty for contempt of court is 2 years."

But he conceded this left bloggers in a 'catch 22' - bound by court orders they have no way of accessing the details of.

Conclusion

Obviously, reporting restrictions are important and should be obeyed. But the current system hasn't really kept up with technology.

The obvious answer is a database of reporting restrictions - this doesn't have to give so much detail that it would become virtually an edition of the News of the World ('you are not allowed to report that X is having an affair with Y'). In this case, it would have just needed to say that you are not allowed to give the results of the DNA test.

There are no plans for such a database - so we're left in the ridiculous position that bloggers are told they must check the reporting restrictions to avoid contempt of court ... but are left with no way to do the checks.

And how come Google news is still getting away with it?

I've been extremely careful with what I've said here. But none of this explains why Google News is still allowed to show headlines from non-UK news sources that give the results of the DNA test (if you do a search on Alfie Patten).

They've either not seen the court order or are ignoring it and the court doesn't know or care. But if the current system hasn't even realised that Google News exists, what hope is there of it dealing with individual bloggers?

Walt Disney and Brand Republic/Haymarket seem to be breaching a court order banning reporting of new details about Alfie Patten, the alleged 13-year old father. (Update: Saturday 1pm. Walt Disney have pulled their story now).

In the last day, the Daily Mirror has had to pull its online story revealing Alfie's DNA/fatherhood test result.

Finding out details of reporting restrictions is hard - courts don't do anything useful like put them online. However, other news sites followed suit, although Martin Belam's great post shows the irrelevance of UK court orders when google news gives access to worldwide news sources.

Are Walt Disney & Haymarket breaching the court order?

As of Friday at 10pm, though, two UK websites are still reporting the details of the Mirror's story: UKfamily.co.uk (part of Walt Disney) and BrandRepublic.com, the UK marketing news site owned by Haymarket Media. You can see them revealing the results of the DNA test here and here.

Screenshots below (with some words blacked out).

I can't say they are definitely breaching the court order, as you can't get the full text online. But if their lawyers are working weekends, I suggest Walt Disney and Haymarket go and hunt out the full wording ...

Screenshot: Walt Disney's UKfamily.co.uk

UKfamily.co.uk - are they breaching court order over Alfie Patten?

Screenshot: BrandRepublic.com

BrandRepublic.com - are they breaching court order over Alfie Patten?