Cover

“A legal crisis in 140 characters,” headlines the Independent, after a Twitter user published confidential details of celebrities allegedly involved in recent court orders, known as “superinjunctions”, which prevent news organs from publishing information about their private lives or revealing their identities. For press freedom campaigners in the UK, superinjunctions, or “gagging orders”, often taken out by the rich and famous, constitute a form of censorship. The anonymous revelations on the micro-blogging site, however – which concern a married premiership footballer, two actors and a celebrity chef – bring “the culture of the super-injunction to its knees”, the London daily writes, noting that the disclosures exclusively refer “to cases of a sexual nature, and could be damaging for those who are defending freedom of expression”. According to an editor at Index on Censorship, a press freedom organisation, "If privacy vs freedom of expression issues are simply reduced to who is sleeping with whom, we lose sight of the more important cases where there is a real need for whistle-blowing, and acceptable breaches of privacy where there is a strong public interest."