Really?!?!?!... Tiger?

I think I can safely say say I never saw this one coming..."Tiger the philanderer"...clean cut, all American, living the "American Dream" Woods. 9- 14 women came out of the woodwork all claiming he had affairs with them. While the details may be salacious, maybe even tantalizing I will leave you to trawl the celeb gossip sites to get more info but for the purposes of today's blog I want to talk about the injunction in the UK courts preventing the publication of "the information".

I'm still trying to work out how exactly Justice Eady can injunct information that is freely available in the US media- broadcast, print, internet from being communicated here. Surely anyone with an internet connection is going to access this information, and by virtue of its availability it is in the public domain and last time I checked that was an exception to granting privacy rights. Not to mention that it makes a complete mockery of the injunction. Or does Justice Eady mean to say that only legitimate news outlets are prohibited from making the information available to the public? Even then, I still don't see the point- anonymous bloggers will blog about it, unless we learnt absolutely nothing from the trafigura debacle.

Surely this is an illegitimate application of the balancing test between privacy and freedom of speech. I've observed the media feeding frenzy in the US around this story and the injunction has served its purpose here and prevented the same and perhaps mitigated additional damage to his reputation but did it have to be at the expense of the credibility of the law?