Super-injunctions - your response
Thank you to everyone who took part in my most recent e-consultation: Should people in the public eye be able to use super-injunctions to keep their private lives private?
With just under 300 replies, there was a resounding objection to super injunctions. The results were:
- 23% in favour of super-injunctions
- 77% against super-injunctions
Common arguments in favour of super-injunctions included:
- Privacy is a basic human right which is preserved by super-injunctions
- Many people in the public eye take out the super-injunctions to protect their innocent families rather than themselves
- Celebrities' private lives are of no interest to many, so it is no great loss if these stories do not appear in daily newspapers
Common arguments against super-injunctions included:
- Being in the public eye carries responsibilities as well as benefits, and individuals should not be sheltered from the consequences of their actions
- The law should not favour the rich, and as super-injunctions are very costly to acquire it seems to
- Super-injunctions can be used unfairly to stifle stories which are of interest to the public
Overall, the consultation proved to be a fascinating indicator of public opinion on such a widely covered and controversial issue. The Prime Minister has written to the Chair of the Justice Committee and the Chair of the Culture Media and Sport Committee, recommending that a Joint Committee be established to consider how current arrangements around privacy and the use of injunctions and super-injunctions can be improved. I will seek to feed the results of our e-consultation in to the committee and update you of any response.
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats