Analysis: Internet democracy sounds the death knell for the judges

Share this article

WE HAVE been brought up to believe that telling lies is wrong - now it appears superinjunctions are telling us that telling the truth is wrong, too.

However, the ongoing democratisation of our world through the internet, which basically says "let the community decide what is useful important or even truthful," has already started to repair the damage to our moral values by insisting that truthful information should be published - if not by a newspaper then by Twitter users.

The democratic nature of the internet has made enforcement of worldwide superinjunctions impossible.

Parliament needs to act fast to close the gap between what the public accepts as morally wrong (telling false stories) and the heavy penalties which the judicial system is willing to impose on those who are responsible for the publication of true stories.

Because parliament has the resources to properly assess and develop new law, in the circumstances, perhaps it is best to ensure that in future the law is developed more through parliament and less through the courts.

In the meantime, for the simple reason that publication of material on the internet can be done from the most remote parts of the world, and by people who might care very little about what our judges think, superinjunctions will suffer death by a mob sooner or later.

Either the courts will simply stop granting them or celebrities will realise that in the fast-moving internet world, these superinjunctions will bring them more harm than good.

• Yair Cohen, of Bains Cohen Solicitors, is an expert in internet law