Injunctions: The courts must catch up with the internet - Telegraph.co.uk

The identification on Twitter of celebrities alleged to have used the courts to prevent newspapers reporting aspects of their private lives has again highlighted the murkiness of the law in this area. This was an organised attempt to circumvent injunctions which restrain the mainstream media but which are apparently toothless in the more anarchic, less-regulated world of the internet. It also exposed the "collateral damage" that attaches to these injunctions. If the applicants remain anonymous, the reputations of perfectly innocent parties are trashed on the internet, as a massive guessing game is undertaken. This week, following online speculation, Jemima Khan felt it necessary to deny that she had obtained an injunction to cover up a relationship with the broadcaster Jeremy Clarkson. This information can be published because it is not covered by an injunction, for the simple reason that it is not true. Miss Khan might have a case to sue for defamation – except that it is impossible to say who put the information on the internet. Moreover, Twitter itself is based in America, and so cannot be sued without difficulty.