Reputation Management Online

It is too early to tell whether this has been a bad week for social networks or for super injunctions in the British courts. Super injuctions are a legal rulingtht forbids media reporting of court case. It can even cover the very existence of the court case. They were usually used to protect vulnerable individuals whose life could be placed in jeopardy if they were named. More recently they have been exploited to protect celebrities from media coverage on the basis they would invade their privacy.
Here is the problem: celebrities have a lot to protect in terms of endorsements which have substantial financial value. Should courts protect them from the fallout from their peccadilloes? Is a man who is cheating on his wife also a “family man” in the case of the widely reported footballer? Was the banker who had an affair with a colleague and had a super injunction so powerful that it could noteven be reported so deserving of court protection that even the regulators of his bank (the largest bankruptcy in UK history) were not aware of his behaviour.

The review of the system looks like it will remedy some of the issues by ensuring that all injunctions are fully explained and that they are for defined periods. This will almost certainly resolve the Twitter issues. The anonymous twitter user, like many others, was frustrated by the exploitation of the law by celebrities.
There is a wider question of whether celebrities should have a “private life” in the sense that you and I understand it. They are highly paid as celebrities and it is unconscionable that the court should protect their livelihood at the expense of freedom of speech.