<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Martin Stabe &#187; injunctions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.martinstabe.com/injunctions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.martinstabe.com</link>
	<description>A UK-centric look at new media and online journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 10:32:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Time: The Great British Battle Between Privacy and the Press</title>
		<link>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2073851,00.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter</link>
		<comments>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2073851,00.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 12:07:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;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&#039;s muddying of the definition of the &#34;press&#34;. In Britain, the division between the two comp... <a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2073851,00.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;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&#039;s muddying of the definition of the &quot;press&quot;. 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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2011/05/25/time-the-great-british-battle-between-privacy-and-the-press/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Independent: The untold story of gagging orders</title>
		<link>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-untold-story-of-gagging-orders-2288607.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-untold-story-of-gagging-orders-2288607.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 11:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;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 hig... <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-untold-story-of-gagging-orders-2288607.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2011/05/25/independent-the-untold-story-of-gagging-orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meeja Law: Super injunctions</title>
		<link>http://meejalaw.com/super-injunctions/</link>
		<comments>http://meejalaw.com/super-injunctions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 11:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superinjunctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judith Townend clears up the increasingly confused terminology and provides some useful data on privacy injunction cases. <a href="http://meejalaw.com/super-injunctions/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Judith Townend clears up the increasingly confused terminology and provides some useful data on privacy injunction cases.]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2011/05/23/meeja-law-super-injunctions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gurublog: Is it really Twitter winning the injunction war?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/is-it-really-twitter-winning-the-injunction-war/1242</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/is-it-really-twitter-winning-the-injunction-war/1242#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 11:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Krishnan Guru-Murthy: &#34;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 ... <a href="http://blogs.channel4.com/gurublog/is-it-really-twitter-winning-the-injunction-war/1242">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Krishnan Guru-Murthy: &quot;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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2011/05/23/gurublog-is-it-really-twitter-winning-the-injunction-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malcolm Coles: The injunction DID protect the footballer Google search volumes show</title>
		<link>http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/footballer-injunction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/footballer-injunction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 11:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;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) ... <a href="http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/footballer-injunction/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2011/05/23/malcolm-coles-the-injunction-did-protect-the-footballer-google-search-volumes-show/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Press Gazette: Facebook and Twitter gagged by new injunction</title>
		<link>http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/7836</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/7836#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2011 09:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;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 publicat... <a href="http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/7836">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2011/05/13/press-gazette-facebook-and-twitter-gagged-by-new-injunction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Cutline: The Guardian gave State Dept. cables to the NY Times</title>
		<link>http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101129/ts_yblog_thecutline/guardian-editor-says-they-gave-cables-to-the-ny-times</link>
		<comments>http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101129/ts_yblog_thecutline/guardian-editor-says-they-gave-cables-to-the-ny-times#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[cablegate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cuttings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wikileaks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;if WikiLeaks ... wasn&#39;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&#39;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 &#39;might have stopped us through injunctions [gag orders] if we were on our own.&#39;&#34; <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101129/ts_yblog_thecutline/guardian-editor-says-they-gave-cables-to-the-ny-times">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;if WikiLeaks ... wasn&#039;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&#039;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 &#039;might have stopped us through injunctions [gag orders] if we were on our own.&#039;&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2010/11/29/the-cutline-the-guardian-gave-state-dept-cables-to-the-ny-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Your Right to Know: Hidden High Court Injunctions</title>
		<link>http://www.yrtk.org/2009/high-court-injuctions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.yrtk.org/2009/high-court-injuctions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[foi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliament]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Heather Brooke: &#34;It is bad enough that superinjunctions exist at all, but it is absolutely appalling that there are not even records kept of how often they are used. Pressure needs to be put on the High Court to record these occasions, and make the details public as a matter of urgency.&#34; <a href="http://www.yrtk.org/2009/high-court-injuctions/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Heather Brooke: &quot;It is bad enough that superinjunctions exist at all, but it is absolutely appalling that there are not even records kept of how often they are used. Pressure needs to be put on the High Court to record these occasions, and make the details public as a matter of urgency.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/17/your-right-to-know-hidden-high-court-injunctions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wikipedia: Streisand effect</title>
		<link>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect</link>
		<comments>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[carter_ruck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trafigura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_t]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Already amended with references to Trafigura and Carter-Ruck: &#34;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.&#34; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Already amended with references to Trafigura and Carter-Ruck: &quot;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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/wikipedia-streisand-effect/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BBC News: When is a secret not a secret?</title>
		<link>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm</link>
		<comments>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blogging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carter_ruck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trafigura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_t]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nick Higham: &#34;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.&#34; <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Nick Higham: &quot;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.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/bbc-news-when-is-a-secret-not-a-secret/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One Man and His Blog: The Day Twitter Destroyed a Gagging Order</title>
		<link>http://www.onemanandhisblog.com/archives/2009/10/the_day_twitter_destroyed_a_gagging_orde.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.onemanandhisblog.com/archives/2009/10/the_day_twitter_destroyed_a_gagging_orde.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[carter_ruck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trafigura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_t]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Adam Tinworth: &#34;a disparate, disaggregated group of individuals were able to work out the basics of what happened, and use Twitter to make the gagging order meaningless. That was mass, connected journalism at its finest.&#34; <a href="http://www.onemanandhisblog.com/archives/2009/10/the_day_twitter_destroyed_a_gagging_orde.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Adam Tinworth: &quot;a disparate, disaggregated group of individuals were able to work out the basics of what happened, and use Twitter to make the gagging order meaningless. That was mass, connected journalism at its finest.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/one-man-and-his-blog-the-day-twitter-destroyed-a-gagging-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ZDNet UK: Twitter, Trafigura, trends and treason</title>
		<link>http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10014171o-2000331777b,00.htm</link>
		<comments>http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10014171o-2000331777b,00.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[carter_ruck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trafigura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_t]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rupert Goodwins: &#34;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. &#34; <a href="http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10014171o-2000331777b,00.htm">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Rupert Goodwins: &quot;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. &quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/zdnet-uk-twitter-trafigura-trends-and-treason/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Telegraph: Trafigura tops list of Twitter trending topics</title>
		<link>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6315133/Trafigura-tops-list-of-Twitter-trending-topics.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6315133/Trafigura-tops-list-of-Twitter-trending-topics.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:28:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[carter_ruck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Telegraph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trafigura]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_t]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hmm. I wonder why? <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6315133/Trafigura-tops-list-of-Twitter-trending-topics.html">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Hmm. I wonder why?]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/telegraph-trafigura-tops-list-of-twitter-trending-topics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guy Fawkes&#8217; blog: Guardian Gagged from Reporting Parliament</title>
		<link>http://order-order.com/2009/10/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/</link>
		<comments>http://order-order.com/2009/10/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:49:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guido: &#34;Wonder if it is this question...&#34; <a href="http://order-order.com/2009/10/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Guido: &quot;Wonder if it is this question...&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/guy-fawkes-blog-guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guardian: Guardian gagged from reporting parliament</title>
		<link>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament</link>
		<comments>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;Today&#39;s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found. The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament.&#34; <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;Today&#039;s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found. The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/10/13/guardian-guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Out-law.com: Reading this story will restrict your freedom to blog</title>
		<link>http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9919</link>
		<comments>http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9919#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;Some bloggers have picked up the stories and may be within their rights to publish while national newspapers cannot. The court order imposing the reporting restrictions says that it only applies to people who know about the restriction.&#34; <a href="http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=9919">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;Some bloggers have picked up the stories and may be within their rights to publish while national newspapers cannot. The court order imposing the reporting restrictions says that it only applies to people who know about the restriction.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/04/01/out-lawcom-reading-this-story-will-restrict-your-freedom-to-blog/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Times: In Britain, Web Leaves Courts Playing Catch-Up</title>
		<link>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/internet/30link.html?_r=1</link>
		<comments>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/internet/30link.html?_r=1#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wikileaks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;[The Barclays injunction against the Guardian] was only the latest example of British courts trying to preserve what it saw as litigants’ rights even in the face of an onslaught of information on the Internet. To some, this may be a final, futile effort.&#34; <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/internet/30link.html?_r=1">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;[The Barclays injunction against the Guardian] was only the latest example of British courts trying to preserve what it saw as litigants’ rights even in the face of an onslaught of information on the Internet. To some, this may be a final, futile effort.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2009/03/30/new-york-times-in-britain-web-leaves-courts-playing-catch-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Times Online: US writer fights gagging order on al-Qaeda claims</title>
		<link>http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2781336.ece</link>
		<comments>http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2781336.ece#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:27:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;A US academic is fighting to stop an English judge silencing her suspicions that a Saudi sheikh may have bank-rolled al-Qaeda ... She is asking a New York judge to defend her right to freedom of speech by making Mr Justice Eady’s order unenforceable in <a href="http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2781336.ece">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;A US academic is fighting to stop an English judge silencing her suspicions that a Saudi sheikh may have bank-rolled al-Qaeda ... She is asking a New York judge to defend her right to freedom of speech by making Mr Justice Eady’s order unenforceable in]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2007/11/07/times-online-us-writer-fights-gagging-order-on-al-qaeda-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Times Online: Websites name UK &#8216;blackmail royal&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2770078.ece</link>
		<comments>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2770078.ece#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:01:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;A British court ruling barring the naming of a minor royal involved in an alleged sex-and-drugs blackmail plot is being widely ignored on the internet, demonstrating the waning power of strict UK gagging orders in the information age.&#34; <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2770078.ece">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;A British court ruling barring the naming of a minor royal involved in an alleged sex-and-drugs blackmail plot is being widely ignored on the internet, demonstrating the waning power of strict UK gagging orders in the information age.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2007/10/31/times-online-websites-name-uk-blackmail-royal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scotsman.com: Web weakens secrecy order over royal &#8216;blackmail&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1728222007</link>
		<comments>http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1728222007#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:00:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Martin Stabe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newspapers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#34;The alleged royal blackmail case has exposed the difficulties the law faces in controlling the dissemination of information in a world where the media operates round the globe 24-7.&#34; <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1728222007">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[&quot;The alleged royal blackmail case has exposed the difficulties the law faces in controlling the dissemination of information in a world where the media operates round the globe 24-7.&quot;]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.martinstabe.com/2007/10/31/scotsmancom-web-weakens-secrecy-order-over-royal-blackmail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

