With that in mind, it seem positively hilarious that he appears to be unaware of the Streisand Effect!
You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh 😀
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Elton John knows Barbra Streisand, so…April 19th, 2016 |
 23 comments to Elton John knows Barbra Streisand, so… |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I see what you did there LOL 🙂
Can you please furnish more details.
JohnM I see what you did there too!
Haha. Perfect.
It’s no sacrifice at all.
JohnM, for shame! 🙂
This caught my eye, of all things:
Stains has a good point, of course – but I’d feel much better if he used something like ‘powerful’ rather than ‘rich’. Maybe it’s just me.
Cure, disease.
There is no such thing as ‘press freedom’, it is simply an aspect of personal freedom.
Bear in mind that some English court orders have sought to prevent people from speaking to their MP about an injunction imposed on them, which strikes me as such an egregious contempt of Parliament that a Bill of Attainder seems to be the only suitable remedy.
I have never understood how Max Mosley managed to lose his case. Which seemed to be :
MM : “Stop this !”
Judge : “Sorry mate, no point, It’s already out there.”
And yet we still have all these injunctions for things that are already out there.
It must be more complicated than that Max Mosley was not popular with the chattering classes.
He’s just playing silly buggers.
Now now chaps, what happened to the Rule of law? We are supposed to wait until the High Court ruling tomorrow, aren’t we? (as if we all didn’t know weeks ago!)
I saw one of the persons in question at a festival back in 1970. “Who is this fat balding poof who thinks he’s Jerry Lee Lewis then?” said the faux Hell’s Angel (he’d turned up either on the bus or a moped) in front of me. A line I will never forget. 😉
It’s a sad, sad situation.
s it possible that now, in addition to the Streisand effect, there is a press-muzzling effect? Days before I had a clue (or any interest in) who this “we’re not-allowed-to-tell-you” story was specifically about, I saw articles in the Telegraph (and the Times IIRC) expressing anger at a court’s muzzling of them. Will the eagerness of the press be enhanced by this attempt to deny them a juicy story?
A press that objected to “you can’t talk about that” for selfish reasons of pique would still be a press that complained instead of complied. Especially as it’s in a PC area, it will be on balance a sign of better things if the Streisand effect is pronounced in this case.
As Alisa (April 19, 2016 at 4:27 pm) points out, it is the powerful, not the rich, to whom this protection is available and who add to their power by it. Fame, and being PC, is a way to get this kind of power. It is precisely the power_less_ who might need protection if anyone on balance ever did – and who would not get it. If someone chooses to pursue a life of fame and fashion as blatantly as in this case, their ravenous desire to receive lots of good publicity and no bad should be called out for what it is.
[Although I was never myself taken with the songs, I suppose I should grudgingly concede some musical ability – not quite Bach, indeed not quite Bush (Kate), but not utterly talentless. The world of fame contains some who seem to be there _solely_ because of their desire to be there, but I’m not quite claiming that in this case – justI thought I should be fair and say that. 🙂 ]
Niall, I feel compelled to amend that as ‘not necessarily the rich’.
I’ve always considered the modern bestowal of Knighthood, and the assigned title “Sir” to be kinda’ like Thane.
Reward for filling the coffers with “captured” riches, and subsequent “special protections” from laws affecting mere commoners.
Too bad Sir John and company decided to go full Streisand AFTER personal drones became popular.
How unfortunate “his people” brought the attention unto all that surround him.
CaptDMO,
Knighthoods of course do not exist except in the imagination of those who ‘believe’ in them. They are not openly ‘sold‘ in the UK anymore, that was made illegal. However, the hereditary title of Baronet, which also goes with a ‘Sir’ prefix, used to be sold and in fact James I in part funded the plantation of Ulster by selling the title to suitable bidders.
Here ya go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu_zwdmz0hE
Do the rules of privilege apply here? Let’s say I know of a couple of superinjunctions – for the sake of argument, let’s say about the unsuspected sexual proclivities of a celeb chef and an actor (there must be more than twenty five of each of them knocking about by now) – if I were compelled to appear in court on an unrelated matter, could I break those injunctions and escape legal redress? And if so, would the press be free to report it?
I seem to remember some years ago an elderly fellow deliberately getting himself arrested for a misdemeanour which required him to appear in the stand at a magistrate’s court, expressly to voice an injustice which so doing would otherwise have put him on the business end of a defamation action.
Looks like privilege has made a difference with a previous superinjunction – although of course there is no comparison (except perhaps in principle) with the public interest of the Trafigura story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#By_businesses
Jason
In England, a witness has privilege against defamation when giving evidence and it is likely that breaching an injunction in evidence would not be actionable as a breach of the injunction by the injuncting court but rather as a contempt of the court receiving your evidence, unless it was directed by the judge that you answer.
Reporting such a breach only has qualified privilege for full and fair reporting of contemporaneous court proceedings, and I would think that a judge might bar reporting of the nature of the contempt, if aware of it.
Jason, I remember reading a ‘short’ story by Frederick Forsyth, where someone had to do something similar, just to be allowed to get his side of a case heard without being suppressed. I presumed he had a case in mind. Ask him.
After the death of a British nurse, Helen Smith in Saudi Arabia, her father used the inquest to make an accusation of murder in his evidence.
And whilst we are on court matters, there is a privacy case at the UK’s Supreme Court today, to decide if an appeal against this judgment can proceed to be heard, and if so, to decide it. It is streamed live at 9.30 BST but may not be recorded.