The Confusing and Oft-Misunderstood "Super Injunction"

(Posted on 14/05/11)

Twitter, Facebook, celebrities, judges, reporters, amateur journalists and super injunctions - an unlikely grouping, for sure, but one that defines the controversial privacy issues related to what information can glide through the ever-evolving internet. It's a red-hot topic in the UK and one that has many variables that are sure to complicate many UK court cases. Before any of this can even begin to make sense, an understanding of what defines a super injunction is a must.

Daniella Graham, a UK journalist explains it this way:

In its purest form, a 'super injunction' refers to a legal gagging order which not only prevents the media from reporting the details of story, but also forbids mention of the existence of the injunction itself.

In other words, there are those cases that a traditional gag order is in place in an effort to protect any number of dynamics, but a so-called 'super injunction' includes one more stipulation that says the existence of that gag order must not be revealed. And here's where it becomes a bit complex.

Because the gag order itself is a secret, those who are unaware of any gag order, such as amateur journalists, expose contents of certain legal cases. One example was the gag order placed on the contents of an internal report by Trafigura, an oil trader, and one accused of dumping toxic waste. Because MPs aren't held to any super injunction, when the information was leaked, it soon became public knowledge, even as most everyone involved was forced to remain mum on the case. Soon, many social networks, including the "Big Two" - Twitter and Facebook - were trending the case, courtesy of those with only partial or even inaccurate information. Those who did know better, however, were barred from participating or setting the record straight. One high court judge took it a step further, though many are wondering if it was a moot point.

Mr. Justice Baker issued a sweeping and extensive ban on the publication of information via any social network. Again, though, his ban can only be put into place for those who are accountable to the courts. Adding further frustrations is the realization that both Facebook and Twitter's home offices are located in the United States.

It's a slow dance that the UK courts don't have the luxury of leading. Still, this highlights the quickly evolving legalities associated with the internet. This is definitely one area that's worth watching.