Censored...

those who are my friend on facebook can see the full version of the sunday herald's front page there - for the rest, well, sorry but i don't fancy being sued! isn't this such a farce? this guy has been named all over the internet and yet newspapers and other traditional media outlets can't tell you who he is. the SH editor, richard walker, decided yesterday afternoon that we were going to have the superinjunction stuff on the front page. what to use as an image? and there began the legal discussions on what we can and can't print, can and can't say.

richard defends the decision in comments to the bbc website, and sky news (i recommend the vid of paul mcbride, the SH lawyer, it's informative), and the guardian. boiled down, his argument is that we're not interested in what footballer is shagging what ex-reality show contestant, but we are interested in the fact that the guy can be named all over the internet but not by newspapers/tv/radio.

to me, it seem superinjunctions are about the rich getting something that ordinary people can't; about the law being used to hide something that should be out in the open - you shouldn't be allowed to hide things that are facts just because they are embarassing or hurtful to an individual. is the footballer's wife going to be any less hurt because there's no naming of him in a newspaper? you could argue that if it's in the papers it's awful, everyone knows. yup. but right now, an awful lot of people know anyway, and there is so much more scrutiny of the case because he's tried to hide it. if you don't want people to know you had an affair, don't have one.

and take this footballer out of the picture and look at some other cases: john terry was found to have been trying to protect his brand image and thus money, not his family. fred goodwin's affair with a colleague probly broke his firm's staff rules, may have compromised his handling of the firm, and could even have implications if she was part of the team setting his salary. andrew marr can hardly ask questions of politicians about their integrity when he proved not to have quite so much as he'd have us believe. and let's not forget trafigura - it tried to cover up the fact it dumped toxic waste in africa with a superinjunction.

yes, a large part of the press often wants only to titillate and scandalise - but once it's in the open it's a nine-day wonder and they move on (yes, harm done, but never as much as if they have to really dig for it and thus twist the knife, trust me). and there are parts of the press, like the SH, that don't trade on gossip but do trade on exposing things that individuals and companies want to hide (like jim devine's expenses fraud, for just one example of the SH investigative side). freedom of the press is painful, but it's also vital. and more importantly, the laws of the uk should not just be for the rich, but should protect all equally.

-------------

what i actually spent my day doing: coffeeing, walking, lunching, chatchatchatting with my greatest pal, S, for some respite care after a tough time recently, and our mutual pal B, trying to relax ahead of a mammoth church of scotland general asssembly session tomorrow... a lovely day with lovely people - if only it were more often! tho would we appreciate it, and each other, as much if we got together more than once every year or so? friendships that matter mould to fit the circumstances you all find yourselves in and reform when circumstances change - those that do not change and grow are somehow lesser, in my thinking.