Following on from the failure of comedian and author David Walliams to keep his private life out of the media and the publication of allegations of Walliams engaging in behaviour that is at best dishonourable, there’s been increased public interest in the use of legal means by the rich and powerful to hide aspects of their private life. The recent rumours surrounding a second celebrity said to have used the law to hide aspects of his life that he doesn’t want to be public have added to that public interest.

The Daily Mail has, as expected, realised that the public has developed an interest in this particular aspect of the law and has published a list of injunctions and superinjunctions that celebrities have had granted to not granted to them by the courts. It makes for interesting reading.

The Daily Mail said:

“A total of 111 applications for new privacy injunctions have been made over the past decade, according to official figures. But as the data only covers this period, the true number granted will be far higher. Companies can also apply for injunctions to prevent reputational harm.

The vast majority of injunction applications by celebrities are used to cover up affairs by making arguments based on privacy law. Walliams, who denies accusations of targeting girls as young as 15, said publishing the allegations would infringe his right to life as it raised the risk of him taking his own life.

Celebrities who still cannot be named in the Press include PJS, a married star who allegedly had a threesome with a couple in a paddling pool full of olive oil.

Lower courts initially refused him a privacy injunction because his cheating contradicted his public portrayal of married commitment, only for the Supreme Court to later rule in his favour.”

I agree with the Mail in that it’s likely that the vast majority of the applications for injunctions are to do with image management issues. A celebrity might court a public image of a happily monogamous man but has discreet side pieces maybe with or without the knowledge of his partner and revelation of this information might tarnish their public image. This sort of stuff is no real biggie for me as there are lots of couples out there Straight, Gay and Bi ones who have partners who cheat or who are, by agreement between the parties, not entirely monogamous but who ‘tip the hat to Mrs Grundy’ as the old saying goes and put on a more conventional face in public. However it is a biggie for the Press who love exposing petty hypocrisies because it puts eyes on pages. People are fascinated with celebrity hypocrisy and it therefore sells which is why the Press covers such stories.

I’m slightly more concerned that corporate entities are also availing themselves of injunctions forbidding the Press from speaking about certain issues. Whilst I can see several good reasons why a company might want to stop knowledge getting out, possibly to protect intellectual property or to protect themselves from violent protestors, I can also think of a multitude of bad reasons why a company might want to silence its critics. A company might be involved in exploitative behaviour towards its workers whilst at the same time having a public image of the company being one big happy family. A corporation might be engaged in shady business practises where exposure might cause damage to the company or expose Directors or key staff to potential problems or public opprobrium. This corporate angle to the culture of gagging injunctions is what worries me much more than whether or not this or that celebrity is NSIT (Not Safe In Taxis) or who is a sexual hypocrite. These injunctions when applied for by Corporations might be hiding stuff that is a whole lot worse than the sort of allegations about questionable and dishonourable behaviour by celebrities that we have seen injunctions and superinjunctions often used for.

It’s important to note that allegations are just that allegations. An allegation is in and of itself not proof of a celebrity’s misconduct. None of the allegations that I’ve seen so far against any of the rumoured celebrities have been tested or examined in a court of law. Anybody can make an allegation but that doesn’t mean that this or any allegation is the whole truth. Internet scuttlebutt is not evidence no matter how much you may wish it to be. Even though I’m less interested in celebrity scandals than some are that doesn’t mean I’m disinterested in what happens with regards to the Law in these scandals. These allegations need to be tested in a court, most likely a civil court for the vast majority of these cases to see where the truth lies in these allegations.

The media furore surrounding the Walliams case and other quasi-hidden celebrity misconduct and dishonour cases remind me very much of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Back then there was an absolute rash of stories covering celebrity hypocrisy, celebrity cheating and politicians caught up in compromising intimate situations. Some of these stories were true and some were only partially true such as the one about Govt Minister David Mellor having an affair with Antonia De Sancha. He did have the affair but he didn’t, as The Sun newspaper claimed, wear a Chelsea football strip whilst being intimate with Ms De Sancha. Yet more of these stories were nonsense on stilts and papers had to pay out big time to celebrities and others that they’d monstered. It looks very much like we are in for a period where the media goes after celebrities who have erred or are alleged to have erred because it sold papers back then and clearly sells papers and gets eyeballs on websites today.

We should be concerned about the existence of gagging injunctions not because it inhibits the Press from putting celebrities in the metaphorical pillory, but because of what other more sinister actors such as corporations might using them for. It matters that British people cannot speak of what goes on in our own courts if those courts are protecting corporations that might be engaged in questionable activities. There could be dozens of companies or NGO’s or other entities using English Law to hide stuff that might be better brought into the open and that readers is much more important that which celebrity might be NSIT or who has allegedly engaged in questionable behaviour.

Link

Daily Mail article

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16286565/The-celebrity-gagging-order-dozens-household-names-footballers-TV-stars-secured-injunctions-hide-affairs-sex-scandals.html