Maybe I'm being a bit thick! But I really don't understand how a super-injunction can possible work in the day of mass-user digital publishing.
Here's my query. Let's say I've seen person X doing something very naughty, but not illegal, on a number of occasions. I decide that I'm going to blog about X's behaviour because that person has been very critical of other people doing the same thing and I believe that X is being hypocritical. I go home and blog about X being very naughty, unknowing that X has a super-injunction preventing people discussing his/her naughty behaviour.
If what I had written was a lie and damaging to X, I would be looking at the wrong end of a libel suite, and rightly so. But if X wasn't being naughty they wouldn't need a super-injunction. If what I've written is true, and I can prove it to be true, I can use the first and most powerful defence against a libel action which is to prove justification.
If I have never been served with the super-injunction covering X's behaviour how can I know that there is a ban on their actions being written about? Surely I can't be held in contempt if I was unaware that the injunction even exists. If the court issues the super-injunction to everyone who could potentially publish the story it would need to go to everyone with a blog, twitter account, facebook page etc. etc. etc. rather defeating the object of the super-injunction.
Maybe I'm missing something really obvious and if I am please let me know.
MP Eric Joyce arrested at airport
11 minutes ago