It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 gives absolute privilege to Hansard and any document ordered to be printed by either House of Parliament. It gives qualified privilege to extracts or abstracts from Hansard or other parliamentary papers. Such extracts or abstracts will be protected if they are published bona fide and without malice. The Master of the Rolls' committee concluded—
"Qualified privilege arises where such a summary is published in good faith and without malice. There is no judicial decision as to whether a summary of material published in Hansard which intentionally had the effect of frustrating a court order would be in good faith and without malice.
Where media reporting of Parliamentary proceedings does not simply reprint copies of Hansard or amount to summaries of Hansard or parliamentary proceedings they may well not attract qualified privilege.
Where media reporting of Parliamentary proceedings does not attract qualified privilege, it is unclear whether it would be protected at common law from contempt proceedings if it breached a court order. There is such protection in defamation proceedings for honest, fair and accurate reporting of Parliamentary proceedings. There is no reported case which decides whether the common law protection from contempt applies. There is an argument that the common law should adopt the same position in respect of reports of Parliamentary proceedings as it does in respect of reports of court proceedings."
(https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtprivinj/273/27309.htm)
That's the closest thing I've found to a legal paper on this, and it's confirmed by private advice I've had.
So...the revelation of the identity using parliamentary privilege doesn't appear to nullify the court order, unless the reporting is "in good faith and without malice". There were quite a few comments here naming him which I can't see as satisfying either of those requirements, much less both.
Put simply...yes, I know that much bigger sites have published it. They, however, have legal funds which far outstrip ours (by which I mean that they have legal funds), and I can see this one being tested in court. If they decide to go after anyone, it won't be the folk who posted on those sites - it'll be the sites themselves. That constitutes unacceptable risk as far as I'm concerned.
With that in mind, consider this a warning. Anybody who decides to name the person in question will be summarily banned, whether they protest to having not seen this thread or not.
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
You can even talk about the injunction itself (its existence isn't subject to its own restrictions, as far as I'm aware). You just can't breach it.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
It's not really a discussion, and from the "nobody will notice us" argument...you could argue the same about our rules on counterfeits, and it would make precisely the same difference to our approach (ie none). We operate according to the best and most cautious interpretation of the law in order that Tony and I don't get sued into oblivion for things you guys have said.
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
But really, who cares who it is? If the person named in the mainstream media is correct, who really cares? C'mon guys n girls, let's just be happy for him that he's become famous for other things in his life.
I never got to read a single response !
Anyway, bloody ridiculous things as per my original thread. Here we are - all of us know who it is - and none of us are allowed to say the name that is all over the TV news as we speak. I'm not being critical of the forum admins here, they are obviously doing what's best for the forum, I'm just commenting on the ludicrosity of the situation !
Everyone knows that it's..... Aaarrrrgggghhhh....!!!!
Offset "(Emp) - a little heavy on the hyperbole."
Didn't work, of course.