4 ms·

I am pretty sure that the press are allowed to know about the injunctions, they're just not allowed to report on them.

• cstross 15y ago
  What about the rest of us -- those of us who aren't newspaper journalists and on whom the injunctions are not served, but who may nevertheless be liable for contempt of court if we tweet or blog about something we read on, say, a foreign web site? We don't know that republishing the information is in contempt of court, but ignorance of the law is not (and never has been) a defense -- at best it's merely a mitigating factor for the court to consider when handing down a sentence.
  • seabee 15y ago
    > We don't know that republishing the information is in contempt of court It's clearly not, since republishing information (in this case, a statement from an MP using parliamentary privilege) is how we knew about Trafigura and other issues covered by a superinjunction.
• seabee 15y ago
  I'm not sure why you are downvoted for that, that's exactly what happens; the press get contacted telling them who they can't talk about. The general public isn't informed (that's the point of a superinjunction) but how would they know about this anyway if they didn't know the subjects personally? Presumably there is some protocol for people who may be aware of what's censored, but suggesting that people can "accidentally fall foul of the law" is as realistic as suggesting a room of 7 billion monkeys randomly hitting typewriter keys will come up with Shakespeare.