3 ms·
In the last year or two I remember reading about a UK company who sucessfully argued for either a right to privacy or a right not to have specific information p
by redcap 16y ago
In the last year or two I remember reading about a UK company who sucessfully argued for either a right to privacy or a right not to have specific information published. This information was about some horrendous pollution that the company was responsible for in Africa, and iirc only came to light because it was picked up by a member of parliament and read into Hansard where it was subsequently picked up by social media.
I tried searching but couldn't come up with anything as I don't remember the name of the company or who was involved.
If my memory serves me correctly, this was an example of exactly why corporations shouldn't be granted the same rights as actual humans.
- _delirium 16y agoI believe it's this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction
- redcap 16y agoThat's the one, ta.
- joe_the_user 16y agoActually, Neither a corporation nor an individual should have the right to cover up something like that.
- redcap 16y agoYou're right, probably better to say that it's a reason why corporates shouldn't be given the right to privacy except for trade secrets and the like.
- _delirium 16y agoThat's one of the controversies with English libel law in general, which is fairly strong, applies a burden of proof to the person accused of libel, and doesn't have truth as an absolute defense.
- arethuza 16y agoUpvoted for not saying "UK libel law" :-)
- yardie 16y agoThat would be Trafigura. The British press was banned from reporting it (and still is). So they handed their material over to foreign presses in hopes that they would carry on reporting it.