Why do mnay celebs use superinjunctions? Because they're not afraid to throw their money and power around.

It's now fact that Tiger Woods and his former wife split up because of his numerous affairs. It's also a fact that he used his immense wealth and power to control the media and other golfers as well. Many other golfers knew about his affairs but never told his now former wife. Didn't she deserve to know?

Then again, can you name one person that would recommend not getting the most expensive (the best) attorney you can find?

"it is difficult to conceive how Twitter users could have come across any of the alleged "superinjuctions" without someone in mainstream media first feeding in the required information"

Perhaps it was down to people in the media. But there are many other people who are aware of the superinjunctions - lawyers, publicists, other parties in the cases which have been injuncted, those who work for those who hold the injunctions, people who meet any of those in the former categories socially.... Any or all of these are points where information might sneak out into the social networks

For "Super Injunctions" to work, many people have to know about them. Such information is bound to leak and there will be plenty of people who are opposed in principle to such gagging orders. It does not require a conspiracy involving the commercial interests of the main stream media for this to happen. It's in the DNA of the Internet and social networks.

From what I read of most of these privacy injunctions, they are largely there to avoid the revelations of the misbehaviour of (mostly) wealthy man. That's not enough, in my view, to justify the judicial censorship of free expression by involved parties.

Finally someone is bringing some sense into this debate. Rather than raving on front pages how technology is putting an end to privacy, we should ask ourselves why British society has become so obsessed with celebrities and private matters of others and what this means for our democracy. It is true that privacy laws can threaten public debate and result in the state deciding what we should and shouldn't know and concern ourselves with. Max Mosley's demand for a prior notification obligation would have been an outrageous curb on media freedom.
But those privacy laws are only a reaction to a tendency that is a lot more worrying: British society's increasing "addiction" to even the most irrelevant gossip. Media actors, pursuing commercial interests, feed us with topics that we are instinctively interested in, that satisfy some ancient craving for gossip and sensation, i.e. that entertain us. Being told part of the story we want to know more, and the media doesn't hesitate to provide us with more. The media doesn't merely supply what the public is interested in - it creates interests. In § 136 of Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers, Baroness Hale effectively finds some "public interest" in even the most trivial celebrity gossip, because without such gossip even less papers would be sold. But it is exactly this kind of information that distracts us from important political matters, that takes up column space and capacity from democratic debate! How did it come to this?

@stevejones-
Firstly, why is the fact that some (maybe most) superinjunctions protect wealthy men relevant? Would they be any more/less wrong if they protected poor women?

Secondly, it's not just them that are being protected. A husband/father having an affair is likely to form a key part of the private life of his wife and children. Not publishing protects them too when they've done nothing remotely wrong.