Censorship and cravenness

Forums › Off topic › Censorship and cravenness

1 | 2

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1535722 19-Apr-2016 15:45

The thing about this story is that no-one did anything exceptional. I don't understand why an injunction was even asked for, let alone granted. It should not have been reported at all. But if a media organisation insists on doing that anyway, then at least be honest about it and report the whole story, including the names. As far as I can see, the names are the only reason media outside the injunction area, including those in this country, are being so coy about it. I don't think that is exercising freedom of the press; to my mind it is hypocritical. I don't want faceless media people I cannot hold to account deciding for themselves what I should be allowed to know.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1535781 19-Apr-2016 16:22

I'm guessing RNZ, Herald, etc, have some kind of legal advice saying there are some minor risks and possible consequences of local legal action. Maybe just legal bills and nothing else.

So here is the point. Not even NZ celebrity. This one is utterly trivial celebrity gossip. There is no public interest to be served by publishing the names in this story so why take a risk for this one. It is trivial and pointless.

It is not really media organisations saying what you can and cannot see or cowardice, it is more like nothing to be gained from it whatsoever for anyone.

As a press freedom issue it is worth having the discussion.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1535784 19-Apr-2016 16:28

Good points. I still think they should have just said nothing. No purpose was served by what they did say.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1535812 19-Apr-2016 16:45

You were able to look up the information and decide that for yourself.

It was worthwhile from that point of view ; ).

There was also a UK MP who was going to reveal it in parliament for who knows what reason but was 'banned' from doing so. By who or what or if a party leader just told the MP to grow up no idea ; ).

From a link i saw there is some discussion in the uk about the validity of injunction. That is a discussion worth having.

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1535814 19-Apr-2016 16:46

Rikkitic:

Good points. I still think they should have just said nothing. No purpose was served by what they did say.

Same purpose as anything else media say. Get viewers/listeners/readers for their customers ad's.

Richard rich.ms

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1536150 20-Apr-2016 00:18

Looks like the story is not over yet....

Still a long way to go before this one says goodbye to the Yellow Brick Road and flickers out like a candle in the wind.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

JWR

821 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 272

#1536155 20-Apr-2016 01:28

Geektastic:

Looks like the story is not over yet....

Still a long way to go before this one says goodbye to the Yellow Brick Road and flickers out like a candle in the wind.

It appears they don't want to furnish us with anymore details.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1536178 20-Apr-2016 01:49

And for people so derisive about the 'coy' nature of the press... Not a single person here has had the balls to name and shame them either?

Ok, so now I know why no one wants to name them

"Yesterday the Sunday Mail in Scotland published the story because it is outside the jurisdiction of the injunction. Our readers are not that interested in threesomes involving middle-aged gay men."

http://order-order.com/2016/04/11/lawyers-only-people-enjoying-celebrity-threesome/

Elton John is gay? Now who'da thought! 🙈🙄

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1536236 20-Apr-2016 08:41

I started to get a little confused when I worked out how many "husbands" were involved. It was a non-story at the end of the day ........ the real story is the curtailment of the freedom of press for what can only be regarded as stupid reasons. If you are in the public eye - behave or pay the consequences.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1536245 20-Apr-2016 08:51

I thought about it and didn't see the point. My reason for starting the topic was not to gossip about it, but to point out the hypocrisy of the media. I figured anyone who wanted to know wouldn't have any trouble finding out the same way I did. I see the link you posted is producing a 404 error.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#1536259 20-Apr-2016 09:14

DaveB:

I started to get a little confused when I worked out how many "husbands" were involved. It was a non-story at the end of the day ........ the real story is the curtailment of the freedom of press for what can only be regarded as stupid reasons. If you are in the public eye - behave or pay the consequences.

Except in this case, who has misbehaved?

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

DaveB

1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 456
Inactive user

#1537717 21-Apr-2016 19:48

bazzer:

DaveB:

I started to get a little confused when I worked out how many "husbands" were involved. It was a non-story at the end of the day ........ the real story is the curtailment of the freedom of press for what can only be regarded as stupid reasons. If you are in the public eye - behave or pay the consequences.

Except in this case, who has misbehaved?

The Butler did it ! No, no, no ..... it was hubby! (It's always hubby's fault).

1 | 2