Time: The Great British Battle Between Privacy and the Press

"Around the globe, the struggle to balance the right to individual privacy and the right to a free press has been complicated by the Internet's muddying of the definition of the "press". In Britain, the division between the two competing rights is particularly wide: The country has some of the most aggressive and gossip-hungry tabloid newspapers in the world, and it also has judges who seem willing to balance the tabloid culture with relatively draconian privacy rulings. In the U.S., by contrast, many states have strong privacy laws, but they are loosely enforced because the U.S. media is, on the whole, more likely to self-censor — something that baffles many British journalists."

Independent: The untold story of gagging orders

"An audit by The Independent has found that at least 264 orders exist which grant anonymity to children or vulnerable adults. But the figures reveal a further 69 cases where injunctions have been granted barring the publication of the names of high-profile individuals, including 28 men accused of extra-marital affairs and nine cases where convicted criminals have been granted anonymity."

Gurublog: Is it really Twitter winning the injunction war?

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: "Twitter only makes the law an ass once the story gets onto it. Generally the only people who know about a story are the journalists and lawyers involved or the people linked to the story themselves. ... That isn’t Twitter or the internet making a mockery of the law it is the few individuals who are breaking the injunctions in the first place."

Malcolm Coles: The injunction DID protect the footballer Google search volumes show

"Until the last few days, there were many more people searching for injunction than there were for his name. Each spike in searches for injunction sees a rise in searches for his name. But it’s only on this Saturday (the final day in the graph) that search volumes for the name really outstrip the word injunction. Hardly anyone has been searching for his name plus the word affair until this weekend."

Press Gazette: Facebook and Twitter gagged by new injunction

"An ‘door-stepping order’ banning the media from contacting 65 people in a right-to-life case was lifted yesterday - but a new order was imposed banning the publication of information on Facebook and Twitter. ... The order banning the publication of details on Facebook and Twitter is believed to be the first order of its kind."

The Cutline: The Guardian gave State Dept. cables to the NY Times

"if WikiLeaks ... wasn't the [New York] Times source, than who was? Apparently, The Guardian—one of the five newspapers that had an advanced look at the cables—supplied a copy of the cables to The Times. ... It's not everyday that a newspaper gives valuable source material to a competitor. But [Guardian investigations editor David Leigh] explained in a [in an email to The Cutline] that British law 'might have stopped us through injunctions [gag orders] if we were on our own.'"

Wikipedia: Streisand effect

Already amended with references to Trafigura and Carter-Ruck: "The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. ... Mike Masnick originally coined the term Streisand effect in reference to a 2003 incident where Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photo of her house removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns."

BBC News: When is a secret not a secret?

Nick Higham: "No injunction has been served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s, news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court - so the corporation too is bound by the Guardian injunction. But the lawyers in this case clearly reckoned without the blogosphere. In the anarchic, anything-goes world of the internet, where freedom of speech is a frequently heard rallying cry, injunctions banning publication of anything are unpopular. This one seems to have acted like a red rag to a bull."

ZDNet UK: Twitter, Trafigura, trends and treason

Rupert Goodwins: "Over the past 24 hours, the news about the injunction and the injuncted material was more effectively distributed across the planet than any army of PR merchants and marketing gurus could have hoped to have achieved ... It will be a while before the implications of the Trafigura affair are fully absorbed: if nothing else, it will make litigous parties think twice before issuing the sort of absolute injunctions which have been growing in popularity even as their powers to hide from scrutiny have increased. "