This news is BANNED in the UK

[Aractus]

If you are in the UK you are not allowed to read this: Elton John's Canadian husband David Furnish in tabloid sex scandal.

The front page of the April 18 edition of the National Enquirer, now on newsstands, declares: “Elton John Betrayed by Cheating Husband!”

But, only three paragraphs into its three-page article, the tabloid reports that lawyers for Elton John said Furnish did not have an affair because the singer knew about the relationship.
...
Elton was able to block publication of the exposé in Britain, where there are stricter privacy laws. (The court-ordered injunction does not apply outside England and Wales but reps for Elton and Furnish are going to great lengths to threaten media outlets — including Pop Goes The News.)

Ah I see it's all consensual. Or is it? This article was published 5 months ago and suggests otherwise:

He is the superstar’s lover, partner and co-father to their two young sons Zachary and Elijah and seen as the one constant in a notorious rock and roll lifestyle of wild excess.

But sources inside Sir Elton’s inner circle now say Furnish, 53, is behaving like a control-freak, exercising an increasing influence over the music legend.
...
A source close to the couple said: “Elton is looking for a quiet life and has handed control of his life to David.

“But David is behaving like a control freak with little idea how to run Elton’s financial or domestic affairs.

“He has fallen out with and fired some very experienced and loyal people and other domestic staff are suddenly being slapped with gagging orders so they can’t talk about Elton or David.

“They have six houses all round the world. All those gardeners, chauffeurs, maids, cleaners. They are all gagged.

“Whenever you visit one of the houses you now have to put your phone in a basket when you go through the front door.”

That behaviour sounds a wee little bit like Charlie Sheen's NDA's.

[abaris]

And why's a celebrity fuckaround supposed to be newsworthy?

[Aractus]

That's not the newsworthy part. The part that interests me is the lengths that it appears David Furnish goes to to exert control. That's why I gave the link to the December story.

[Brian37]

If it is banned, how did you get a hold of it? Is that the government censoring it, or is it limited by the editorial discretion of the private media itself? Seems funny that you can make public something "banned".

I can only speak for America's media laws, but filing a lawsuit does not mean the government is censoring anything. I do know that a public figure has a much bigger standard than a no name person in proving damage from talk in media. I don't think even famous people who win suits do it because they want to silence speech. But at the same time they don't always win either. The UK is famous for tabloids so if the celebrity always got it's way there would be no tabloids at all.

Now, in America our most famous free speech case was "The People Vs Larry Flint", where Hustler publisher Larry Flint was sued by Jerry Falwell for making a parody add claiming Jerry was fucking his mother. Our SCOTUS , and rightfully so, sided with Larry in saying Jerry was a public figure and since it was done in parody, no reasonable person would believe Jerry actually fucked his mom.

So when you talk about Elton John and an alleged affair, in what context was it being done and how was this alleged material printed obtained, even if true? Famous people don't have a right to privacy outside private property once on the sidewalk, and they are also open to ridicule and blasphemy much morso than a no name. So I'd say if a court takes a suit case filed by a celebrity it isn't saying they will automatically side with that celebrity, but that based on the suit, a case can be heard by a jury to consider if the privacy was violated beyond mere trash talk.

I don't think tabloids or reporters for that matter, have a right to bug your room, peer into your private property with a camera or hack your computer or cell phone. But it is no given a celebrity will always win a suit merely because of tabloid trash talk.

But, outside any legal issues, with couples why is it newsworthy in any case? If famous couples have issues, just like your no name neighbors, it would still be between the couple, and at best, a civil court if they decide to divorce.

[Alex K]

If it is banned, how did you get a hold of it

He's not from the UK, for starters...

[Brian37]

If it is banned, how did you get a hold of it

He's not from the UK, for starters...

"Banned" is what North Korea does. I don't think the U.K. or the courts are pulling anything. They are a secular country and I think they are similar to us in treating everything as case by case based on precedent. Are you saying celebrities should never have the right to sue, even if what is printed is not only false, but damaging?  

Again, I have been aware since I was a teen of the U.K.'s famous tabloids. I'd like to see the end of our "National Enquirer" here in the states, not to end free speech, but the literally waste of trees used to get people to like shiny objects. Just like I think we need more COSMOS and far less Jerry Springer and Duck Dynasty. 

I'd say get a law degree there or sit on a civil jury there multiple times before you make blanket assumptions about entire systems. 

Celebrities certainly, but especially politically, should not have absolute power, but simply because one does file a suit it is bullshit to say it its an automatic win just because of their fame.

[Cyberman]

Superinjunctions are not new, but if the appeal against this one is anything to go by they might become a thing of the past.

[Cyberman]

(Oh, and the UK also includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, where this injunction doesn't apply.)

[account_inactive]

(Oh, and the UK also includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, where this injunction doesn't apply.)

This.

[Minimalist]

That's not the newsworthy part. The part that interests me is the lengths that it appears David Furnish goes to to exert control. That's why I gave the link to the December story.

People who successfully get laws written or re-written for their own benefit will use those laws.