Which footballer injunction

What's more I can't even defend myself because I have been gagged. If this is the way privacy injunctions are supposed to work there is something seriously wrong with the law. The Sun sought to have the gagging order lifted, arguing that Thomas's right to freedom of expression, covered by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, outweighed the footballer's right to remain nameless under article 8, the right to privacy.

Eady's initial ruling said there "can be no automatic priority accorded to freedom of speech" and that "as in so many 'kiss and tell' cases" there was no obvious justification in naming the player on public interest grounds. The judge noted that lawyers for the Sun had "not even argued that publication would serve the public interest".

That led some to conclude that reporting of kiss and tell stories could become considerably less likely. Earlier yesterday, it emerged that another married premiership footballer had obtained an injunction preventing the publication of details relating to an alleged affair by a red top tabloid.

Most of the gagging orders in existence have been taken out by men preventing the revelation of sexual indiscretions, although Eady dismissed suggestions that he and other judges were "introducing a law of privacy by the back door". After all, had he not got the gagging order, or even just applied for an injunction, journalists would consistently pose questions to Giggs and his manager Sir Alex Ferguson about the alleged affair, which obviously wouldn't go down well in the Old Trafford camp, and could've easily led to a downward spiral within the team.

When John Terry had his super-injunction lifted following his extramarital affair, on grounds of freedom of expression , the media scrutiny was firmly fixed on Stamford Bridge, affecting Terry's subsequent performances, his team's performances even though they went on to lift the league and cup and ultimately making him lose out on the England captaincy.

Had this been Ryan Giggs, no doubt his stellar performances at the grand old age of 37 would've diminished as none of the media focus would be about his football, with United losing out on one of their most important and experienced players.

Giggs' teammates would've also been affected, knowing that even if they do well and comfortably beat their opponents, the newspaper headlines would be hardly about what happened on the pitch; that's when it becomes all the more harder winning games, when players know they won't get the recognition they deserve. He's reported by the BBC to be involved in legal action against a tweeting journalist, over an affair with someone known only as 'ELP'. Regardless of whether you think the tawdry antics of vaguely famous folk are actually worth reporting, you have to laugh at the hubris of miscreants spending a small fortune on a super-injunction only to be circumvented by every blog, tweet and website on the Internet.

It's truly poetic justice -- a super-injunction is so effective at gagging the press because it bans even referring to the fact there is an injunction, but it's the very word 'super-injunction' that reveals CTB's real name when typed into Google or Twitter.

On the other hand, legal experts have argued that the unfettered nature of the Web threatens fair trials , as juries and witnesses can be exposed to speculation and information devoid of context.

Further, if people are found to be innocent of crimes or indiscretions, searching the Web will continue to besmirch their name, with old stories reporting the original allegations. Should the footballer come clean, or is he justified in protecting his family and reputation? And how should the law change to fit in with the digital world? Scottish paper names Giggs as footballer who got injunction. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email. Share Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email. Print this article.

Reduce font size. Increase font size. Most Popular.