the tiger woods injunction in the english High court

Carawaystick

if I were to publish the injunction in Ireland what penalties could be applied? hypothetically speaking?

It seems bizarre that tiger woods could get an injunction preventing any images of any naked part of his body being published when his naked cheeks, along with the rest of his face were all over advertising for Gillette, Accenture, etc. Is a persons face not a naked part of their body?

Tom Young

Is there a wording problem above? - Should publish injunction read publish images? The injunction is not applicable in this jurisdiction, as yet! Tiger took an action here before!

monkeypants

I believe that this judge has granted dubious injunctions for rich people before...

Carawaystick

Tom Young wrote: »

Is there a wording problem above? - Should publish injunction read publish images? The injunction is not applicable in this jurisdiction, as yet! Tiger took an action here before!

Nope, the injunction states that you can't publish the contests of the injunction
It was on wikileaks on Monday, can't get there to link to it from here now.

Wasn't the last Tiger case about nude pic of his wife thought.....!

Any in general and hypothetically would images of a face fall under images of any naked part of a body?

Our man in Havana

SNIPPED

the_wheel_turns

Presumably a court would interpret "any naked part of the body" as meaning any area that would ordinarily not be visible to the eye as a result of being shielded by clothing.

Clearly this would not apply to his face.

auerillo

the_wheel_turns wrote: »

Presumably a court would interpret "any naked part of the body" as meaning any area that would ordinarily not be visible to the eye as a result of being shielded by clothing.

Clearly this would not apply to his face.

Are you confusing him with the late "general", aka Martin Cahill, and his mickey mouse underwear, which he, curiously, chose to wear about his head?

monkeypants

Justice David Eady, that's the name I was looking for. He's on some kind of crusade against free speech on behalf of the rich and powerful. The funny thing is, each time he grants such an injunction, it simply draws more attention to the matter. Several states in the US have actually brought in laws against this chap to stop his judgements having effect over there. Google for the Libel Terrorism Protection Act.

He makes a mockery of the English courts system and encourages libel tourism. As Tom Cruise 'said' in South Park (yes, that episode): I'm going to sue you in England!"

Our man in Havana

Do people actually go into the High Court in London and ask that Justice David Eady hears their case? Is that even proper?

monkeypants

Bond-007 wrote: »

Do people actually go into the High Court in London and ask that Justice David Eady hears their case? Is that even proper?

I'm not sure exactly how it works (Judge John Deed is my only reference ), but even the going to England bit to get an injunction is a bit off. Such a request would be laughed out of court in the US.

From what I know of Eady, he has specialised in libel, so I suppose that it's not unreasonable that libel cases would make their way to him. He used to be a tabloid defender, but has changed his ways since. Paul Dacre has spoken out against him a number of times, but since he's sometimes known as 'The Vagina Monologues' that may not be a bad thing.