Bizarre UK Free Speech Ban Bars People From Telling Anyone -- Including Elected Officials & Lawyers -- About Potential Toxic Chemicals

from the say-what-now dept

Fri, Apr 1st 2011 1:05am — Mike Masnick

Having just mentioned a bizarre superinjunction against free speech in the UK, I should also mention an even more bizarre "hyperinjunction" that was apparently issued by the UK High Court years ago, and goes so far as to ban people talking to their own elected officials or lawyers about a claim that "paint used in water tanks on passenger ships could break down and release potentially toxic chemicals." This hyperinjunction was apparently issued years ago, but is only coming to light now, because a Member of Parliament brought it up -- and he's protected by "parliamentary privilege" from getting into trouble for mentioning the otherwise secret order. Honestly, the details are pretty sketchy, but it appears that the court flat out ordered someone not to discuss a particular legal dispute concerning such toxic chemicals:

with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", along with the US coastguard and any ship owners, and also forbids any speculation linking chemicals in the paint with the illness of any individuals.

I'm trying to figure out how this could possibly make sense in a country that has even marginal respect for free speech. Even worse, it appears that the individual that this hyperinjunction was targeted at later got in trouble for daring to talk to a lawyer about the case. What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, hyperinjunction, injunction, uk

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Poster, 1 Apr 2011 @ 1:36am

What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?

England, duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prince William, 1 Apr 2011 @ 2:19am

epic lulz.
so england...that is those island people who pretend to be in the european union while going to war for america. totally wanting to be a big shot in brussel but not even have the Euro...drive on the left side of the street, consider a 2-party system a democracy, invade Lybia .... all that seems as absurd as calling their national football team "good".
maybe free speech isnt made for the uk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drewmerc (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:21am
  
  Re:
  we have a 3 party system labour, lib dems and conservatives
  (lib dems and conservatives are currently in power with a coalition goverment)
  
  just thought i'd fix your only error
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Schmoo, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can I interest you in a punch in the face?
    
    No? How about a kick in the bollocks, then?
    
    Still not interested? Well, hey, don't complain - you have a choice, and that choice is *the only thing that matters*. It's called democracy, you commie bastard!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Numpty, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:56am
  
  Re:
  Just asking are you bias against England?.
  Firstly those Island people are made up of 3 mainland countries & N. Ireland.
  Secondly.. 2 Parties, yeah in 1950.
  Thirdly Britain & France was chomping at the bit to go into Lybia before the USA.
  Fourth that little group of islands of the coast of europe has more clout than Brussels.
  Finally UK built the biggest empire the world has ever had - it is plonkers such as yourself that will force us to do it again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    "UK built the biggest empire the world has ever had "
    
    Shhhhh - there is a SuperInjunction which stops everyone from talking about it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cba mug, 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And you just violated it!...lol
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought that the superinjunction was against using the past tense with requard to england and empire.
        
        FWIW this site is biased against legal stupidities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:41am
  
  Re:
  "so england...that is those island people
  
  maybe free speech isnt made for the uk."
  
  Point of note, England and the UK aren't interchangeable terms. It's like confusing Texas and the USA.
  
  You might also want to read about John Milton, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Note which country they were from.
  
  I hate nationalism, but the reverse is bad too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    "England and the UK aren't interchangeable terms. It's like confusing Texas and the USA."
    
    You mean the US is not a part of TEXAS?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 2:33am

George Orwell was close
It must be "All speech is free, but some speech is more free than others."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 2:37am

Also:
This is yet another prime example of how much various governments fear their citizens. Unfortunately, they grant themselves the power to "wish" their possible problems "into the field." Until that power is stripped from them, the haze surrounding these governments (and their patrons) becomes more and more opaque.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:22am

That's where you're going wrong you see.....
I'm trying to figure out how this could possibly make sense in a country that has even marginal respect for free speech.

You're mistaking the UK for a country that has even a marginal respect for free speech. We turned into a police state some time ago and didn't bother to tell anyone including the residents.

What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?

What, like the right to remain silent when arrested?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:50am
  
  Re: That's where you're going wrong you see.....
  V for Vendetta was not meant to be a guidebook. ANYWHERE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:34am
    
    Re: Re: That's where you're going wrong you see.....
    V for Vendetta was not meant to be a guidebook. ANYWHERE.
    
    And yet.......
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:53am

The type of country that paints there walls with death apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vadim (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 3:53am

Re: Superinjunction
April Foul's Day?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:55am

Could it be a plan hatched by the health industrial complex in order to maximize profits. It's simply good for business, what are you - some kind of terrorist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:18am

As mentioned in the linked article ""This is the development of privacy law through the courts as opposed to Parliament legislating on it. It is deeply concerning, and undermines freedom of speech."

The judges in the UK are a breed apart from everyone else. Some of the things they come up with are just mind boggling and to anyone else would seem completely ridiculous.

Hopefully Parliament will step in and do something about this. That the guy couldn't talk to an MP or even a lawyer means that he had no right to recourse at all which is just not right in a supposedly free society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Greg G (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 6:21am

Let's get it over with.

I'm issuing a super-duper-ultra-hyper-radical-extreme-triple dog dare-injunction. Effective globally, covering everything.

There, now if you speak at all, you owe me all of your income for life, and for 100 years after you assume room temperature, just in case you're worth more dead than alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Schmoo, 1 Apr 2011 @ 7:36am
  
  Re:
  I regret to inform you that I was granted an injunction against injunctions of this nature just yesterday, and that in accordance with the terms of my injunction, your death is now mandated as restitution. I hope you enjoyed your time here, and that this unfortunate circumstance has not tainted your impression of our wonderfully sensible legal system.
  
  Lots of love,
  Lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dear Lawyers,
    
    You forgot to magnify the fine print in order to read the disclaimer, which is typed in a font size of .0000000069. It reads as follows:
    
    This injunction overrides, supersedes, and makes null & void all previous and future injunctions that seek to render this injunctions null & void. Any attempt to do so shall result in the foreheads of any person(s) involved being flopped with copious amounts of phallus.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 6:28am

In these cases the internet is just wonderful.

They can block it inside the U.K. but the rest of the world doesn't need to follow that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike42 (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 7:40am

Just remember...
The US rebelled from England for a lack of rights.
Then we created a Constitution to protect our rights.
And we have since been modeling our laws after England and the UK, slowly eroding those rights.

Makes sense, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Apr 2011 @ 7:42am

"What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?"

A country ruled by the rich clown with a metal hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 8:04am

The company conxerned is HEMPLE a paint manufacturer I cant get much more information like whose ships have this paint but I understand the ministry of defence stopped using their products years ago. link may help
http://cryptome.org/0003/hempel-toxic.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 1 Apr 2011 @ 10:52am

Check out.... John Harris, the illusion on YouTube. & also just type in freeman wins court case on YouTube. Or also type in google the word freeman. ..... What do you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 1 Apr 2011 @ 10:56am

Sorry not 'freeman wins court case' instead 'freeman council tax' (2nd clip down)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 10:58am

barbara strikes again..
don't speak of this to anyone.... (said to a small group of people huddled in an office/courtroom somewhere)...

tada!!! hundreds of MILLIONS of people suddenly read about it across the entire planet!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 2 Apr 2011 @ 5:49am

nothing new here - again.
toxic ship anti-fouling paints used in shipping has been banned world wide for over 20 years particularly lead and arsnic based paints.

massive - massive fines and bans are given if you are caught using toxic paints in shipping.

ships are regularly tested and checked when entering new countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gordon (profile), 2 Apr 2011 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: nothing new here - again.
  Well Darryl,
  
  The article isn't talking about the problems with using toxic paints in shipping is it?
  
  You've failed to read and truly comprehend what exactly was said here - again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mhenriday (profile), 2 Apr 2011 @ 6:50am

�What kind of country allows such a ridiculous suppression of basic rights?�

A country whose leadership is, along with counterparts in other lands, in the process of bombing people in other lands in accordance with a �responsibility to protect� them. �Difficile est saturam non scribere....�

Henri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okwhen (profile), 2 Apr 2011 @ 7:52am

Corrupt Governments
America is no different. Under the USA Patriot Act people are taken without legal representation, without being charged, etc and even worst if you fit their criteria for rendition. If any government or ruling powers are above the laws set forth for their citizens, then all laws are null and void regardless of circumstances. This is exactly why the majority of ruling powers are illegal under there own laws. However, greed, power hungry, etc are allowed to rule the world under the preconceived notion some will rub off on them so they can become greedy, above the law, bastards also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drew (profile), 3 Apr 2011 @ 1:11pm

re: what kind of a country
the same kind that tried to make it ok to imprison someone for up to 90 days without trial or even notice of the crime they were alleged to have commited.
Oh yes, and the same kind of country that allows ludicrous libel tourism for works not even published in the uk.
Oh yes, and the same country that still thinks copying a cd to your hard-drive is a crime: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8422308/HiFi-manufactures-advert-encouraged-people-to-bre ak-the-law.html
Oh yes, and the same kind that, post Digital Economy act, makes you liable for the actions of users of your wifi spot.
In short, one run by idiots who legislate on headlines and judges who make case law in ignorance.
My country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]