Social media makes super injunctions, super useless?

Having just rebuilt the site - I am not especially time rich, so the blog is just a short and sadly for this week an imageless one. I really hate the concept of the super-injunction - to me it’s just a cowardly escape route for unsavoury celebs, who apparently are private individuals who deserve privacy and respect, because well, they say they do - in spite of the fact they will do pretty much anything to get famous, or have their picture in some pointless magazine, privacy is the number one concern for today’s private celebrity.

Now a twitter user has 'exposed' certain people for doing stuff they certainly did not want in the public domain, whether they did it or not is irrelevant - it means the 'accused' have had to deny rumour, face difficult questions and have many people wondering 'if it really is true...'nHow pleasantly ironic then, that the very thing that was supposed to protect these people from awkward questions and unpleasant situations, has given the masses the ability to sling mud and demand an answer, infact the irony of it cannot be sufficiently articulated by such a low brow blogger as I.

My dislike for these injunctions was first realised, upon the revelation that young association footballer John Terry had one. After JT's super injunction he and his family, his brand career etc. were all protected, which for the sake of his young family perhaps, is understandable, if not morally virtuous. However, the fact that Vanessa Perroncel, who despite being a fame hungry imbecile, has a child - must wonder why the courts not see it fit to afford her an equal right to privacy, for the sake of her own family & 'career' - as JT gets paid 150k a week for hoofing a ball about, he could afford a 'Super-I' where she was left to burn and be vilified by the masses - it seems a little one sided to say the least. In the end it all comes out, mostly thanks to social networks - the last free press of our time (although for how long remains to be seen) With social media, the super-injunction has not only become void, but ironically gives people who want to lie and cast false allegation a position of much greater strength than in the pre SI era.

The web is too often used as a forum to say anything you feel like, without fear of consequence - people forget that you are as liable online as in print & as the audience is so vast, you are more likely to be found out. That said, people's thoughts, opinions or even conjecture should not be silenced, just because some nut job like max mosely thinks nobody should be allowed to say anything, without his exclusive consent.

The web has created a platform for people to say what they want, when they want too - even if the law 'clamps down' on people making comments on twitter or tries to stop postings & groups on facebook, the web & its immense community will find a new way to expose what they believe should be exposed. I have to say that it is my humble opinion that this is a positive thing - Journos will constantly bemoan bloggers for dishing out ill-informed and badly researched material that has not been correctly composed (certainly the case here) and say that we need to buy their publications to gain a balanced or perhaps educated perspective (or a cynic would argue to keep their jobs and lifestyles secure). This, to be fair is a valid point and there is always a place for professional journalism. However, it is this ill-informed bloggers view that, the recent 'exposures' of these ludicrous super / hyper / super mega awesome-o injunctions has a positive effect - not because the people involved have been found out, but more that there exists a media which can be free of constraints and gagging orders, where if you look in the right places, there are things more powerful than the fat cats can control (yes a little bit over the top there) I think we should all hold close to our hearts the freedom the web presents, how it has evolved to become more powerful than the highest courts of law or the most despotic of leaders - goodbye Super Injunction, no one will miss you...

One last thought - there are 2 schools of marketers - those who say that social media is a pointless tool - that in reality, it is not heavily used versus say, TV audiences & you should invest your budget & time into more pro-active marketing channels - I sit very much on the other side of that fence - a free, global portal that used correctly can be a very positive marketing channel for any business – after all it has already demonstrated its worth against super wealthy individuals, nut-job dictators & high courts - it would be criminal not to make use of it...nTo discuss using social media to help your business, email us on This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , follow us on twitter - @93media or you can call us on +44(0)1723 384 536