More like giant cherries
At least they're trying to reform their libel laws. One step forward, two steps back.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
There are implications, but on the other hand I can't say I sympathize with prostitutes who feel like sticking it to a celebrity they slept with because it'll net them millions in publicity if they play their cards right.
Permanently Banned
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
That is a concern. Best to tackle the incentives to supply such stories, though, so they're not worth massive court battles. Make it a crime to sell or buy personal gossip like this. But with no such restrictions on whistleblowing.
It would hopefully spell the death of many prolefeed gossip magazines 
edited 20th Apr '11 6:50:08 PM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]
Hmm, do I want people to be able to release intimate photos of anybody without their express consent?
No.
If you want to make an exception in this law/ruling/order for reporting in the event of a crime, or even just to the authorities(who themselves should be under gag orders as a rule IMHO), ok, fair enough, but I doubt you're going to get people to stop caring about who other people have sex with.
Prince of Dorne
You're conflating two matters. You speak of corporations and secret injunctions in your text - but the article was all about privacy and personality rights, which I fully support.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
"Corporations can silence allegations of defective, dangerous, or toxic products."
How exactly did you make the logic leap from protecting someone's private identity to silencing claims of malpractice?
...ninja'd.
edited 20th Apr '11 6:55:24 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Permanently Banned
How superinjunctions stop investigative reporting
They're a multi-purpose instrument, I'm afraid.
edited 20th Apr '11 7:00:04 PM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]
The gag is on reporting, not prosecuting.
edited 20th Apr '11 7:02:40 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Permanently Banned
So? The public should have a right to know if their health is at risk. These trials can go on for ages.
edited 20th Apr '11 7:07:50 PM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]
Usually, when there is cause for concern, the companies will pull the product to avoid more serious damages and more costly and publicized lawsuits.
edited 20th Apr '11 7:10:16 PM by kashchei
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Permanently Banned
Only when a link can readily be proven by cause and effect. When it takes long-term scientific studies to prove a link with cancer, powerful corporations can shrug off the evidence and continue to profit from dangerous products for a long time - they can commission fraudulent research, and in the worst cases, buy or intimidate judges. It's hardly a fair system in the first place. And with media gagging orders, people won't even find out about these sorts of allegations before it's too late.
edited 20th Apr '11 7:26:23 PM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]
Prince of Dorne
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379045/Permanent-gagging-order-hushes-TV-stars-shame-ever.html
The ‘family’ man, a household name, won the High Court injunction to suppress for ever ‘intimate’ photographs of him with a woman.
It is the latest in a series of increasingly draconian secrecy rulings and came just one day after appeal judges decreed that another celebrity who had an affair with a colleague should remain anonymous to protect his children.
In yesterday’s case, Mr Justice Eady even went so far as to say that the woman, whose profession cannot be reported, ‘owed a duty of confidence’ to the celebrity.
His ruling is similar to protection orders hiding the identities of James Bulger’s murderers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, plus child killer Mary Bell. In these cases the murderers were deemed to be in danger of being attacked if the public found out who and where they were following their release from prison.
I have a feeling that it won't stop here. These sorts of orders won't even be made public knowledge in the future. There is already an even more powerful hyper-injunction which can be used to shut up everyone but members of parliament. It's disturbing. Corporations can silence allegations of defective, dangerous, or toxic products. Think of the implications of applying this permanently. Free speech in Britain is in a very very precarious position.
edited 20th Apr '11 6:27:20 PM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]