Connecting to LinkedIn...


Are Super Injunctions acceptable?

Are Super Injunctions acceptable?    - A summary of a national poll carried out to UK SMEs
In recent weeks, there have been many reports on the use of super-injunctions by celebrities wanting to keep details of their private lives out of the media spotlight.
Touch Local carried out a poll amongst a sample of UK small business owners, to find out how they felt about the upsurge in so called Super Injunctions by public figures.
The Survey
Do you think that super-injunctions are an acceptable way for public figures to protect their privacy?
The Results Yes                           117    (18%)
No                            532    (82%)
*Total responses:    654
(As of 25th May 2011)
The majority of respondents (82%) thought that super-injunctions were unacceptable as they felt affluent public figures use it for their own benefit. Only a minority of respondents (18%) that took this survey thought that super-injunctions were an acceptable way for public figures to protect their privacy, stating the gossip culture that the press have perpetrated has lead to the need for such injunctions being necessary.
Some of the comments from the respondents:
Despite the vociferous media comment, privacy laws are not just for the rich and famous. Many ordinary people need to be protected from some of the intrusive investigations made by the press, to the chorus of "it's in the public interest" when they really mean it's of interest to the public and sells their papers!
Super injunctions protect only one (rich) person in a situation that usually involves 2. This is clearly unfair.
Being a celebrity is a choice and a privilege not a right. To stand in the public eye inevitably means that one has less right to privacy and more responsibility for the impact of one's actions.
The law should be above money
I feel rather disgusted with people who are trying to cover up their infidelities and think they can buy their way out of anything.
Having Judges decide on what information we should have access to has no place in a democratic society. For sure we do have a degraded 'show all' celebrity culture, but super injunctions are definitely not the way to raise the level of public debate.
There should be a proper privacy law in this country. The press have far too much freedom to report on matters which are private to individuals and cannot be said to be in the public interest.
They enjoy the publicity when it favors them. They must not be allowed to cherry-pick.
Super injunctions violate freedom of speech and should be banned. Anything that's true should be reportable.
Privacy is, I am afraid, becoming an old fashioned concept. New communications technology has put us into the era of mass gossip - get over it!!
Super injunctions are a way for rich people to avoid being exposed as immoral when they are trading on their reputation.
Regardless of who you are you should act and behave responsibly and be prepared to stand up and be counted for your actions, having money is one thing having morals is another.


Articles similar to

Articles similar to