Privacy vs. Freedom of Speech.

It was revealed yesterday that the footballer who holds one of the famed super injunctions is attempting to sue the Twitter users who have been revealing his name on the social network site.

Well good luck to him, because he’s going to get nowhere.

Twitter is a United States company operating in the state of California, therefore they are not under the jurisdiction of the high courts of the United Kingdom. Even so, the high courts have given Twitter seven days to reveal the names of those pesky users who’ve been committing that heinous crime of saying whatever the hell they want.

Twitter has not commented, and to be honest if I were them, I’d be pretty annoyed. What gives this soccer player from the UK the right to get on his high court horse and start demanding the names of its users? Twitter provides people with a voice, look at the Arab Spring if you want proof in that, it is possibly one of the greatest new tools of the modern era. Even better than Facebook. So if you’re going to sue Twitter for giving people a voice does that mean we can all sue God for giving everyone mouths?

It’s the fact that the high court has had the balls to demand Twitter reveal the names. Or else what? What are you actually going to do? They’re not breaking US federal law, so why should they care at all? Revealing names of people who have an account with you is not good for business. I really hope Twitter don’t sell out these people. Where is this going to go next? Will the high courts be knocking on Mark Zuckerberg’s door next? I’ve seen the footballer’s name more on Facebook than I have on Twitter!

All of this because our government hasn’t passed any privacy legislation on this issue. Instead they’ve left it in the hands of the judges, who I feel sorry for in all this. What can the UK government do to stop sites like Twitter revealing names of those who hold these injunctions? Are we heading into a world where we block certain websites because the government doesn’t want us seeing things it doesn’t want us to see. I can think of a country who does that and I’m quite glad we’re not like that to be honest. Can we keep it that way please?

It is, I will admit, a tough call. On the one hand lies freedom of speech, the main tent peg of our society in the West; on the other hand there’s privacy, the other, slightly worn tent peg that seems to diminish more and more everyday with this likes of Facebook and Twitter existing. Then again it’s not just the internet, check out those CCTV cameras, Orwell was right! Big Brother is watching you!

But which one is more important? Privacy or freedom of speech? It seems both cannot win, or at least both cannot be valued equally in our society.

Everyone has the right to privacy; some get it more than others, footballers and MPs for example get a heck of a lot more attention than the average Joe. However, when you are in the public eye, whether it be a footballer, an MP, an actor, or whatever, you have to understand that your actions will have consequence, and your privacy is more at risk than others.

The reason these injunctions exist really, is to protect the privacy of the family involved. In the case of the footballer: his wife and children. This is fair enough, they are innocent in all this, it’s not their fault he has slept with a reality TV star so it is grossly unfair for them to lose large chunks of their privacy due to the actions of one man, especially the children.

You would presume that’s why the said footballer spent £50,000 on this super-injunction to stop his family being affected. He is just thinking of his family. But hold on, he didn’t seem to have any regard for them whilst he was conquering Imogen Thomas did he? His family wouldn’t be about to lose their privacy if he hadn’t done it in the first place! Every action has a consequence…unless you have £50,000 of course.

And that’s just it, these super-injunctions are only available to certain people. Are certain members of society’s privacy more valuable that others? Well, yes, to put it simply. If you don’t earn enough, then you can kiss your privacy goodbye. If they’re going to be available they should be available to all. Not just the super rich.

The thing is, it’s going to come out eventually, so why not just let it happen, dragging it out just makes it worse. The supposed famous actor who’s been sleeping with call girls is a complete nobody, if Twitter is correct anyway. Would the internet lie to you?

Let’s face it, at the end of the day this is a complete non-story. A footballer who has had an affair with a reality TV contestant. Who really cares? She wants to tell her story so she can make the money and he isn’t cool with that. Fair play to her though, he doesn’t like it? Well, he shouldn’t have slept with her then. It takes two to tango so they say, Imogen Thomas has lost her privacy, but he hasn’t. In fact every single holder of a super-injunction is male. What does that tell you?

These super-injunctions should be used properly. In sensitive cases where child protection is at risk for example. Not when a footballer wants to protect his image and privacy. Until the government sorts this mess out, this will go on and on.

I think what swings it for me is the fact that complete innocents have been dragged through the mud and have lost their privacy when they are not involved in any way shape or form. That is why I say freedom of speech wins. Jemima Khan threw fuel onto this raging fire when a Twitter user wrongfully accused her of having an affair with Jeremy Clarkson of all people.

This accusation was incorrect, completely and utterly wrong. Jemima Khan and her family lost their privacy, is that fair? All because a totally unrelated person has a super-injunction. People are bound to speculate, and that will mean rumours spread like wild-fire, and most of these rumours will be false. It is not fair on those who are wrongfully accused. Khan had to come out to the press to suppress the rumours, announcing her worry for her 14 year old son being bullied at school. A son she described as “painfully shy.”

He is the reason I am against these injunctions being upheld. It’s just not fair on him. A completely unrelated child gets affected by a man having an affair. It’s ludicrous.