Superinjunctions!

Given that there is as much flak flying around about superinjunctions as there is dust in the Sahara, the time may have come for another post with a legal tone.  Superinjunctions were never meant to be permanent tools (unlike most of those who invoke their protection).  They are supposed to be temporary relief measures.  The aim is to secure information for short periods of time, with that confidentiality being carefully balanced against the need to have an open and public system of justice.

Judges are not infallible.  Perhaps they have been too quick to grant protection to the undeserving.  But it's not all about footballers playing away. 

We're back to free speech - a vexed question.  So obviously a good thing, and yet freedom of speech must be exercised responsibly.  Actions have consequences.  Peddling plain untruths - as we see happening in the States, with the Obama birth certificate nonsense a prime example - should be actively discouraged.  We saw some of that over 'ere during the AV campaign, too.

However, exposing a sexual dalliance is not always OK - why should it be?  It may however be OK sometimes - especially if hypocrisy is exposed by the disclosure.  How can anyone seek to impose rules of behaviour on others - moral or social - if such rules manifestly cannot be complied with by those seeking to impose or uphold them?         

Privacy and freedom of speech are not necessarily compatible.  This makes for a good Venn diagram argument.  How large is your overlap?  Does freedom of speech trump privacy every time?  Should it? 

Good Lord.  We are almost being deep.  We now wade back into the shallows, with a pina colada safely in hand, watching a long stream of our handsome lovers doing the conga on the beach. 

Love, M&Tx