Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

Tiger Woods's gagging order will backfire

In this internet age any injunction is self-defeating

By George Eaton Published 12 December 2009 14:15

Tiger Woods's injunction against the British press has once again made the UK the laughing stock of the world when it comes to free speech. It's remarkable that Woods and his lawyers have embarked on this self-defeating course of action.

The pragmatic case against the injunction is that in the age of the internet any gag is destined to fail on its own terms. As the humiliating experience of Trafigura and Carter-Ruck demonstrated, injunctions only succeed in drawing attention to the story the claimant is attempting to suppress.

Under the terms of the injunction (which was immediately published on the celebrity website TMZ), the New Statesman, like other titles, is banned even from discussing the nature of any material that might be subject to the court order. But that hasn't stopped a network of anonymous bloggers from doing so.

The principled case against the injunction is that Woods lost his right to privacy by actively presenting himself as a role model. He built a $1bn brand around his image as a clean-cut, honest and virtuous individual.

"I think it's an honour to be a role model," he once said. "If you are given a chance to be a role model, I think you should always take it because you can influence a person's life in a positive light, and that's what I want to do."

Moreover, by publicly admitting to "trangressions" (an action he now surely regrets), he gave credibility to the media's lurid accounts of his sex life.

Woods would not have dared seek an injunction in the United States, where the First Amendment guarantees free speech. But in Britain, where Mr Justice Eady's one-man war on free expression continues, he predictably succeeded.

In our leader last week, we warned that Britain's draconian libel laws had made it the "destination of choice for oligarchs and plutocrats who wish to evade scrutiny and intimidate their opponents". To that list we can now add philandering celebrities.

Jack Straw has pledged to reform the system radically and tackle the growth of "libel tourism". After this latest embarrassment, he must act with greater haste.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Tags: Tiger Woods Libel

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

13 comments

Sat, 2009-12-12 17:28 — Rory Wellington (not verified)

Aren't you playing with fire by daring to show an image of Tiger's bare arms? (lol)

Sat, 2009-12-12 19:45 — Henry (not verified)

The UK injunction is also affecting the US media as well. For example the Washington Post and CNN don't report the contents of the injunction. The New York Times doesn't even appear to comment on the injunction at all.
The US first amendment thus seems vulnerable to UK court decisions.

Sat, 2009-12-12 20:45 — Martin V. (not verified)

So a British judge thinks he can gag the whole world?
A Sicko Brit judge, and snot nose Britain with your libel laws and Dickensian view of free speech, think you own the planet? FU brit judge.

Just google "Tiger Wood Injunction" and follow any of the links.

CAN YOU EVEN PRINT THIS POSTING?????? Or do you have to kiss the judges butt?

Sat, 2009-12-12 21:27 — Ben. (Los Angeles, CA) (not verified)

You can read the whole thing below.
Thank God we kicked you Brit's outta here 230 yrs ago.
LET FREEDOM RING!!!

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/1210_schillings_doc_wm.pdf

Sat, 2009-12-12 21:57 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Yes it may be remarkable that Mr.Woods et al. ( ie his lawyers) have embarked upon this course of action. Thus for example; he may have done it because "he can". Everyone is entitled to a private life and hopefully when the so called freedom of the press gets better regulated all citizens will better understand how free we really are to do what we want in private without fear or favour etc. ( assuming we're not breaking the Law)

Sun, 2009-12-13 16:11 — demonax3

Why are rogue Judges tolerated in your country?

Sun, 2009-12-13 16:58 — Scott (not verified)

The injunction of course only applies in England - albeit it is applicable to publications within England. No equivalent order has been taken out in the Scottish courts. There never is. Today the terms of the injunction (which various English journals claim cannot be published for legal reasons) are published by a Scottish newspaper sports section.

Could reporting of this story please be accurate. This is English law. I doubt if a Scottish court would be arrogant enough to assume an interlocutor pronounced here could bind the world.

Sun, 2009-12-13 23:28 — Michael Leo Johnson (not verified)

Please do not group Mr Justice Eady with the rest of the brits, or for that matter the majority of fair mined British judiciary.

Mr Justice Eady has demonstrated time and time again that the party represented by his chambers One Brick Court usually wins in the court of Mr Justice Eady...well what do you expect since Mr Justice Eady was the head of One Brick Court chambers before being elevated to the judiciary.

And then we have the absurd ground breaking privacy orders of Mr Justice Eady, in the main these favour the party represented by One Brick Court. Mr Justice Eady allows a claimant convicted of child offences to give testimony via video link, least he be deported back to the USA. Mr Justice Eady invents a UK privacy law, not enacted by parliament, which is to the benefit of the One Brick Court represented party in various claims.

I believe that the USA should rename the senator’s bill entitled "Rachel’s Law" to "Eady & One Brick Court legal nullification".

Other judges do not conduct themselves like Mr Justice Eady, so please don't lump all of the brits in with Mr Justice Eady. We are much nicer than that.

I would add that the names of barristers involved in the Woods injunction have been kept secret....I wonder who they are, and what chambers?

Mon, 2009-12-14 13:42 — Wilhelm (not verified)

Is Tiger , ( real name Eldrick Tont Woods ) a RACIST ?

I say this because the randy old devil has gone out with 12 women, all caucasions , or is it that all black women are selfish, lippy, chip on their shoulders, big mouth, divas ?

Mon, 2009-12-14 22:50 — Roger Clarke (not verified)

I think that the British Press and media should stick to the terms of the injunction to the letter - which of course means no more ads, video games, DVDs,or indeed anything that has the tiniest bit of Tiger showing can be published, displayed or sold.

Wed, 2009-12-16 10:32 — Michael Leo Johnson (not verified)

There once was a Justice called Eady,
Much loved by the pompous and greedy.
He said “You can’t say that!
It insults some rich prat!”
We could do without him, indeedy.

Wed, 2009-12-16 01:35 — mattwardman

>Under the terms of the injunction (which was immediately published on the celebrity website TMZ) the New Statesman, like other titles, is banned from even discussing the nature of any material that might be subject to the court order

Are you?

It's framed against "persons unknown who have taken or obtained or offered for sale photographs of the intended claimant etc".

Have you?

The Guardian quite happily discussed it.

Thu, 2009-12-17 13:20 — rilora (not verified)

Tiger's Taste of Losing
As Tiger Woods' wife leaves to go to Sweden, perhaps Tiger should leave to see a shrink. The guy had it all – family, wealth, admiration, reputation - but it wasn't enough. Now he is losing for perhaps the first time in his life. Many sports blogs listed at http://www.dozensports.com/ say Tiger will bounce back from this, but I'm not so sure. Rarely has such a big star fallen so low in such a quick time. Can Tiger ever return with pride?