Super-injunctions, Celebrities & Privacy... Who's in the right?

If you see someone you know, cheating on their partner would you go and tell the partner...?  You would have a moral dilemma and more times than not you probably wouldn’t – but whether you would or wouldn’t doesn’t actually matter.  Compare this to a celebrity who gets caught doing something they shouldn’t.  Is it our right to plaster this across the tabloids about people we don’t know?  Whereas with people we do know we may turn a blind eye?

This post is on the subject of super-injunctions - court orders preventing a given matter being discussed and on top of that, preventing the fact that the order even exists from being reported – essentially making it vanish into thin air.  This has been in the news recently because the Lib Dem MP John Hemming has threatened, using a certain parliamentary privilege, to oust certain individuals - which he has now done so (23rd May).  This has led to a wider debate about issues of privacy...

Personally, I don’t see how it is anyone’s business what these people do in their private lives.  Does the fact that a Premiership football player, now confirmed as Ryan Giggs has been having an affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas impact our lives in anyway?  Not my life no.  Some may argue that due to their public status they gain certain advantages in life and should therefore be prepared to bear the brunt of the media if and when their misdemeanours are uncovered.  I would disagree with this argument...

However, on BBC News (April 26^th), Niri Shan, head of law firm Taylor Wessing made a great point.  If celebrities’ go out and share their private lives in magazines and on television then they are voluntarily inviting public opinion - they surely cannot expect their lives to all of a sudden be private when they decide.  But then part of me feels that in this age of technology, half the population are making their private lives public on a daily basis through the likes of twitter and facebook... So is there even a difference...?

There is also the issue that these super injunctions cost 50K – Yes 50 THOUSAND POUNDS!  Slapping on such a high price tag automatically makes them exclusively available to the wealthy.  The geeza down your local who gets caught by his wife’s best mate can’t exactly nip down to court and buy one!  Imogen Thomas couldn't afford to either so as a result became the sole target of a media onslaught for her part in the affair – yet the ‘other party’ has effectively got away scot free minus a week’s wages – surely that’s not right or fair?

It is not a secret that many people, male and female, have affairs - there is no argument there.  It is also true that certain people are aware of and tolerate their partner's affairs for reasons personal to them.  If a newspaper then becomes aware of the indiscretions and decides to stick them on the front page families can be torn apart unnecessarily in the name of 'news' when the non-offending partner was already fully aware and 'content' with the situation.

What do you think...?

Please subscribe/follow my blog if you think I'm worth listening to...