UK courts issued injunctions to prevent the press from revealing damaging evidence about famous people. Namely: Alan Shearer (caught having affair with Gabby Logan), Ewan McGregor (caught with a prostitute), and Ryan Giggs (caught having affair with Imogen Thomas). I posted this because the UK judge who issued the Giggs injunction called it an "injunction against the world". Meaning that, due to his feeble understanding of international law, he believes that somehow he has authority over my actions. He also, apparently, thinks that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for revealing this information. So, this entire post is just my way of saying, "Hey, go fuck yourself" to that judge. One judge cannot, despite his best efforts, censor the internet. The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Censoring the press is a scary proposition, even when it's done for all the right reasons. (ie. protection of a witness, to ensure a fair trial, or to protect national security). But to issue a "gag order" against the press to protect the wealthy and famous from embarrassment is a very small step away from corruption. If the judges will issue an injunction for these matters, how long will it be before the politicians start using the courts to suppress their opposition?

I didn't have an account. I just set up one. Repost: UK courts issued injunctions to prevent the press from revealing damaging evidence about famous people. Namely: Alan Shearer (caught having affair with Gabby Logan), Ewan McGregor (caught with a prostitute), and Ryan Giggs (caught having affair with Imogen Thomas). I posted this because the UK judge who issued the Giggs injunction called it an "injunction against the world". Meaning that, due to his feeble understanding of international law, he believes that somehow he has authority over my actions. He also, apparently, thinks that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for revealing this information. So, this entire post is just my way of saying, "Hey, go fuck yourself" to that judge. One judge cannot, despite his best efforts, censor the internet. The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. Censoring the press is a scary proposition, even when it's done for all the right reasons. (ie. protection of a witness, to ensure a fair trial, or to protect national security). But to issue a "gag order" against the press to protect the wealthy and famous from embarrassment is a very small step away from corruption. If the judges will issue an injunction for these matters, how long will it be before the politicians start using the courts to suppress their opposition?