My posts about: Twitter super injunction
I’ve blogged about (super) injunctions and the difficulty of enforcing them once information has leaked on to the internet for more than two years. The biggest problem used to be idiot lawyers who forget to serve them on Google … Twitter’s only made this problem worse – especially as it has no UK office. I’m not against injunctions – although I do think they are misused.
How the newspapers are running the Ryan Giggs injunction story
Until this weekend, Google shows the injunction has been fairly effective. But on Saturday, there were 425,000 searches for his name ...
Six newspaper stories from the last week that told you who the names of those with superinjunctions were.
No one is going to prison over the Twitter superinjunction leaks
![Super injunctions and Twitter: Alfie Patten, John Terry, [redacted] and [redacted]](http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/wp-content/themes/arthemia-premium/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/khan-550x186.png&w=80&h=80&zc=1&q=100)
The biggest problem is, oddly, not that you can find out on Twitter or via Google. It's that the lawyers involved didn't seem to think it's necessary to tell Google or Twitter that an injunctions exists.
Claims about Fred Goodwin's injunction are out in the open - in Google, on social media sites, on newspaper sites, on Wikipedia and on popular blogs.
John Terry's been "nobbing" Wayne Bridge's girlfriend as one of the edits on Wikipedia puts it. Terry got a superinjunction forbidding publication of this story - and of the fact that there was an injunction. ...
The case of the leaked DNA test on 13-year-old alleged dad Alfie Patten has revealed a big problem with court-ordered reporting restrictions in the internet age: there is nothing to stop websites repeating the information unless they know about the court order banning this. And under the terms of the order itself, there's no way to find out about the order.
