Monthly Archives: August 2011

Can US media outlets report that Robbie Keane has taken out two superinjunctions preventing British newspapers from revealing allegations about his private life?

Well, of course they can as injunctions (super or otherwise) go against one of America’s founding principles, free speech. US commentators remain puzzled by what they see as a cynical absurdity.

A superinjunction does not just prevent papers reporting stuff. They can also prevent reporters reporting the fact that the person has prevented the paper from reporting stuff.

In May, Jemima Khan denied getting a super-injunction (over allegations of an affair with Jeremy Clarkson) thus (deep breath) proving that she could not have got a superinjunction, otherwise she would have been in breach of the superinjunction by saying that she had got a superinjunction.

Follow?

The equivalent in the US is something called prior restraint, only used in matters of “national security” and, of course, a method favoured by Richard Nixon.

“The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of speech and courts are very, very reluctant to prohibit somebody from saying something,”Steven Wagner, a litigation lawyer Wagner Davis in New York told BBC News when the Ryan Giggs superinjunction story broke.

“So a prior restraint case against any form of speech is difficult to obtain in the US because of the constitutionally protected rights that grant freedom of speech. When the US was created, our founding fathers wanted to ensure that its citizens had the right of petition and freedom of speech without the threat of sanctions.

“It’s one of the country’s basic rights and very strongly protected in our laws, so there’s a natural disinclination to any part of prior restraint.”

Why Superinjunctions Don’t Work In The US (Tom Geoghehan, BBC News, May 2011)

Previously: So You Know Robbie Keane Has Taken Out A Superwhatsit