tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post8777284133014686157..comments2024-03-29T08:05:56.264+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Friday 10th June - In the News ...ObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-22783770334843653072011-06-12T17:44:58.694+01:002011-06-12T17:44:58.694+01:00Thanks, Captain Obvious!Thanks, Captain Obvious!Ed (not Bystander)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-63264109107161503762011-06-12T12:29:11.372+01:002011-06-12T12:29:11.372+01:00It's merely the blog writers personal choice a...It's merely the blog writers personal choice and many bloggers opt to use a pseudonym. Personally, I prefer it that way.<br /><br />By the way I have not said that freedom of expression trumps privacy. Both are important rights - the question is where the balance lies.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-72528324461860271472011-06-12T06:19:04.878+01:002011-06-12T06:19:04.878+01:00Just so I have this straight. You, "ObiterJ&q...Just so I have this straight. You, "ObiterJ", writing anonymously, are in favour of freedom of expression when it comes to privacy?<br /><br />Want to share with us your real name and home address? Want anyone else to do so?Ed (not Bystander)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-48501325989225162452011-06-10T11:58:32.697+01:002011-06-10T11:58:32.697+01:00I am not sure that I entirely agree with Sir Steph...I am not sure that I entirely agree with Sir Stephen either but I want to give his article more thought. At this stage, I merely drew attention to it. Deep down, I suspect that my feelings lie in favour of freedom of expression and exceptions to that require very clear justification.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-91435660129858959272011-06-10T11:26:49.255+01:002011-06-10T11:26:49.255+01:00"Hence the super-injunction forbidding both, ..."Hence the super-injunction forbidding both, which is anathema not only to the press but to any system of open justice, but was forced on the courts by the repeated undermining of their orders"<br /><br />Here is the logical error, leading to the false conclusion. Nothing was forced on the courts, and it was entirely wrong for the courts to curtail open justice for any reason whatsoever, let alone something so trivial as a libel allegation.<br /><br />It is that transgression by the Judiciary which has hurt the constitutional relationship between the Judiciary and Parliament, not what John Hemming or anyone else has done.<br /><br />There are many things which justice might require but cannot be done - a victim cannot be raised from the dead, a limb cannot be restored, and bell cannot be unrung.<br /><br />And nothing can be done which would require open justice to be curtailed.<br /><br />Judges must accept that if they cannot give effect to their orders without destroying one of the foundations of justice and indeed of democracy, then they must not make such orders.Bennoreply@blogger.com