Nationals step up assault on super-injunctions

The national press is today keeping up its assault on super-injunctions claiming Twitter has humiliated the courts and made the injunctions look pointless by publishing the information judges say should be secret.

The Times asks: "What is the difference between a traditional news outlet and a website? If you are reading online, you might think that the answer is nothing. Yet, type another address at the top of your screen, and you could read of matters that The Times is legally prohibited from reporting. This is an absurd situation. It institutionalises the deception of the public, damages responsible media in favour of those with fewer qualms, and makes a mockery of the rule of law."

The Independent: "In what has been described as the "Spycatcher moment" of the internet era, a single user of Twitter has brought the culture of the super-injunction to its knees by drawing nearly 55,000 followers to a list of celebrities alleged to have links with the secretive gagging orders.The frenzy of activity on the micro-blogging site yesterday makes the super-injunctions as ineffective as the ban placed on publication of the autobiography of the MI5 officer Peter

Wright in the mid 1980s."

Daily Mail: "Internet gossip has brought the whole existence of celebrity super-injunctions into jeopardy, legal experts warned last night.Millions of computer users have now found the leaked names of TV stars and footballers who believed the gagging orders would keep their sexual indiscretions secret.In addition, a report on the future of privacy law by a leading judge has been delayed amid the growing row over the controversial injunctions."

The Sun: "How appropriate that stars who behaved like twits should be exposed on Twitter. Once again Britain's medieval gagging orders look absurd as the internet hums with revelations newspapers are banned from repeating - even though newspapers got the stories in the first place."

• There was some good news on privacy for newspapers today. Max Mosley lost his European Court case in which he was claiming papers should be forced to notify the subject of a story in advance if it infringed their privacy.