headvoid
Can I have Ops?
What a load of tosh is being spoken about this right now.
Here is what used to happen:
1. The News of the Screws, or whatever tabloid is involved calls the Agent of the footballer, let's say for the purposes of this example is a man called Ryan . They are then asked to comment on wether they did, or did not shag a reality TV star, lets call her Imogen.
2.The Agent says "no comment" but let me get back to you
3. He calls the star who maintains that maybe they just were at a party together, and it just so happened that blow jobs was the theme of the party.
4. Agent and Footballer make a decision wether they sue.
5. The Paper makes a judgement on wether there is some truth in it mainly due to the reaction of the Agent. If there is some high brow legal action coming down, they check their facts again.
6. The story runs / does not run dependent on how much truth is there.
What happens now
At Point 2, a "super injunction" is placed gagging the whole thing. If there was no truth in it at all then why go to this bother?
An Agent saying, "Print the bastard, my client met her once at a party and remembers her vaguely. They were never alone, as he is a married man. Print it, and we will happily sue for damages" If an Agent says that, would any paper print? Unlikely.
So your big defence of twitter and free speech is about jack shit really. It's about tabloids and tittilation. I even doubt the Fred Godwin thing is really in the public interest.
This is about poor evidence from crap journalists.
Here is what used to happen:
1. The News of the Screws, or whatever tabloid is involved calls the Agent of the footballer, let's say for the purposes of this example is a man called Ryan . They are then asked to comment on wether they did, or did not shag a reality TV star, lets call her Imogen.
2.The Agent says "no comment" but let me get back to you
3. He calls the star who maintains that maybe they just were at a party together, and it just so happened that blow jobs was the theme of the party.
4. Agent and Footballer make a decision wether they sue.
5. The Paper makes a judgement on wether there is some truth in it mainly due to the reaction of the Agent. If there is some high brow legal action coming down, they check their facts again.
6. The story runs / does not run dependent on how much truth is there.
What happens now
At Point 2, a "super injunction" is placed gagging the whole thing. If there was no truth in it at all then why go to this bother?
An Agent saying, "Print the bastard, my client met her once at a party and remembers her vaguely. They were never alone, as he is a married man. Print it, and we will happily sue for damages" If an Agent says that, would any paper print? Unlikely.
So your big defence of twitter and free speech is about jack shit really. It's about tabloids and tittilation. I even doubt the Fred Godwin thing is really in the public interest.
This is about poor evidence from crap journalists.
