This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/10/scottish-newspaper-reveals-identity-superinjunction-couple
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Scottish newspaper reveals identity of superinjunction couple | Scottish newspaper reveals identity of superinjunction couple |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A Scottish newspaper has printed the identities of a celebrity couple who took out a superinjunction to suppress details of alleged infidelity that has been the subject of growing global speculation in recent weeks. | A Scottish newspaper has printed the identities of a celebrity couple who took out a superinjunction to suppress details of alleged infidelity that has been the subject of growing global speculation in recent weeks. |
| The paper, which cannot be identified for legal reasons, said it was printing the names of the pair on its front page, not because it was concerned with their private lives but because it was championing free speech and a free press. | The paper, which cannot be identified for legal reasons, said it was printing the names of the pair on its front page, not because it was concerned with their private lives but because it was championing free speech and a free press. |
| Legally, the newspaper can publish the identities of the couple in Scotland as the appeal court order applies only in England and Wales. It cannot refer to the names online. | Legally, the newspaper can publish the identities of the couple in Scotland as the appeal court order applies only in England and Wales. It cannot refer to the names online. |
| Linking the decision to publish the identities to the Panama Papers revelations, the newspaper’s editorial said: “Maybe, as the very rich and very powerful clients of Mossack Fonseca run to their lawyers, it was bad luck that [the celebrities’] superinjunction emerged. | |
| “Because, just to be clear, we are not naming them because of the story they are trying to suppress. We couldn’t care less. We do, however, care about free speech, a free press and very wealthy people spending huge sums of money stopping stories they do not much like the sound of. | “Because, just to be clear, we are not naming them because of the story they are trying to suppress. We couldn’t care less. We do, however, care about free speech, a free press and very wealthy people spending huge sums of money stopping stories they do not much like the sound of. |
| “If we did not name them, it would only encourage people – possibly celebrities, more probably tycoons and politicians – with something to hide to attempt to hide it behind a court order.” | “If we did not name them, it would only encourage people – possibly celebrities, more probably tycoons and politicians – with something to hide to attempt to hide it behind a court order.” |
| This is not the first time that the Scottish press has defied a superinjunction. In 2011, Ryan Giggs was granted a similar court order to prevent the publication of details about his alleged affair with a model. | This is not the first time that the Scottish press has defied a superinjunction. In 2011, Ryan Giggs was granted a similar court order to prevent the publication of details about his alleged affair with a model. |
| After taking legal advice that an injunction lodged in England did not apply north of the border, a Scottish paper carried a full-page picture of the footballer, with a thin black band across his eyes and the word “censored” in capital letters. | After taking legal advice that an injunction lodged in England did not apply north of the border, a Scottish paper carried a full-page picture of the footballer, with a thin black band across his eyes and the word “censored” in capital letters. |