Talk:PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd

Google & DMCA

Is it worth mentioning the rather unusual usage of the DMCA [1] in this case? --wintonian ^talk 04:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. It depends, have reliable sources commented on the use of the Act? But linking to those unreliable sources in the database notice would be unsuitable and violate WP:BLP in my view AusLondonder (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Harvard Uni [2] not a reliable source then? --wintonian ^talk 05:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about the "allegedly infringing URLs" in the complaint. Linking simply to the database is WP:OR. A reliable source needs to discuss the use of DMCA and the link or otherwise to PJS v News Group Newspapers AusLondonder (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

sub judice

Unless I am mistaken sub judice only refers to the potential ability to prejudice an ongoing case or trail. This clearly does not apply here and neither is this a criminal case. As such I suggest the removal of the pink sub judice banner above. --wintonian ^talk 12:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. Maybe a new kind of warning banner template is needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but doesn't the subject matter in these cases speak for itself ? Or do we need to spell it out? --wintonian ^talk 13:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mind you I quite fancy replacing it with {{Censor}}, but then I feel that I couldn't do that with any honesty. --wintonian ^talk 13:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Honesty?? This is the High Court, you know, not Broadway. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the sub judice template because no-one is on trial and it is misleading to imply this. However, people in England and Wales could face legal consequences if they broke the injunction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I've followed the suggestion of Martinevans123 and created a new template to cover this type of situation. It is basically a tweak of the old sub judice template.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Best if I just keep schtum, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, be a good boy and remember what Lord Mance said. And that goes for everyone from now on.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably get a flea in my ear. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Some people have been receiving e-mails which say the following: "We are writing to inform you that Twitter has received legal correspondence regarding specific content posted on your Twitter account. The complainant requests that the following tweet, allegedly in violation of local law in the UK, be removed immediately from your account. Please confirm whether you will voluntarily comply with the request."[3] It doesn't say what might happen if a person says no (being waterboarded, making Lord Mance very cross, etc) but it justifies the template warning at the top of the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Awaiting a secondary source before adding to this article. But I must remember not to bother ever joining Twitter. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Genders

Before anyone reverts my edit here is my edit summary (pepole don't seem to always read them first) The sources cited refers to both the claimant using the gendered "he" & "himself" and the partner as the gendered "his" (.carruthers-law.co.uk) & (inforrm.wordpress.com) --wintonian ^talk 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You've created a sentence fragment; simply deleting it would remove the helpful clarification that PJS is the claimant. "In a relationship with his partner" is also awkwardly redundant. it would be easier to just state explicitly what you say in you edit summary. Or just use a non-UK source to name the claimant.--Trystan (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. I removed the "his partner" bit, obviously my brain isn't in the right place today. As for ought right naming it seems there is no source reliable enough yet to meet Wikis test. Besides I might be committing contempt of court by doing so. --wintonian ^talk 13:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

PJS

"PJS" has until 10am BST Tuesday 19th April to appeal the lifting of this injunction. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36073383) This farce may be coming to an end soon. DanielJCooper (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Breaches of injunction

This article is starting to get edits revealing the name of an individul. I did ask for some kind of pre-emptive protection of the article so as to avoid this but that was declined on the basis the article wasn't being vandilised enough. If Carter Ruck are reading this I did try my best DanielJCooper (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Does Wikipedia have a policy of observing UK court injunctions? Is it legally subject to them? I'm wondering why this article doesn't show the widely-known identities of PJS and YMA? cagliost (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There have been various discussions about this and it is more about WP:BLP than anything else. If the National Enquirer (or other media outlets quoting what it said) is the best sourcing available, then it isn't going into the article. Twitter, blog posts etc are definitely out. Wikipedia is hosted under U.S. law, but if you look at the U.S. mainstream media, the vast majority of sources there have not named the "celebrity couple" either. It is only the usual suspects like the National Enquirer, Sun and Daily Mail that find this sort of thing endlessly interesting. Wikipedia is not censored, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

And the Supreme Court not particularly interested in possible effects on the olive oil industry, re: Extra Virginity: The Sublime and Scandalous World of Olive Oil? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Media in USA, Australia, Scotland and Canada

Media in Australia, the USA and Scotland have reported that the identity of "PJS" is David Furnish. This should be included in the article for encyclopedic value. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Good job this isn't a "BLP" article, isn't it. Wikipedia categories can be so useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added information about the front page of the national enquirer magazine as this is noteworthy. This information is for encyclopedic purposes and is in no way intended to reveal identity of "PJS". Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. Good job we're not "claiming" or "implying" anything, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I am only commenting about the media coverage and making links to articles published in sources such as The Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2016/04/11/david-furnish-named-in-sex-scandal-uk-court-bans-coverage.html.

Good heavens. What can they possibly know, these lesser breeds. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring

There appears to be an active dispute about whether the National Post and Toronto Star qualify as reliable sources for the identity of PJS. I'm hoping we can move to more discussion and less reverting in resolving this. I would say that both papers are reliable sources, as they are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While the specific articles do refer to the tabloids National Enquirer and Sunday Mail, neither of the Canadian papers is in the habit of parroting tabloids. It is unlikely that they would have run the stories without being highly confident that they were correctly identifying PJS.--Trystan (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable for a controversial claim about a living person because they both explicitly cite the National Enquirer as their source. AusLondonder (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

for the reasons Trystan has mentioned, they are reliable sources.79.65.232.216 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, 79.65.232.216 has violated WP:3RR and should be blocked AusLondonder (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We are at 5RR on David Furnish: [4][5][6][7][8]. GAB^Hello! 23:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, let's look at AusLondonder's revert record too, shall we? 79.65.232.216 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do, and then take a self-reflective read of WP:NOTHERE AusLondonder (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

well, you were the one who took it on themselves to delete things everyone was aware of, but couldn't see here. Not sure where your latest link, the third or fourth you've tried to invoke as support, comes into play. 79.65.232.216 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

At some point this injunction is surely going to be lifted revealing the name of whoever this "PJS" is - I can't imagine who it could be?! I think this one will sort itself out eventually DanielJCooper (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. If there are editors who have significant doubts as to the factual accuracy of the contested material, the crux of the dispute may be resolved by waiting a few days or weeks and seeing what the Supreme Court says.--Trystan (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That does of course assume that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are sensible enough to recognise there isn't any privacy left to protect in this case. The cat is very much out of the bag. These injunctions just don't work in the age of Twitter. DanielJCooper (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes = but, since the salient facts and the names of those involved are, or can be, known everywhere except on part of a small island in the Atlantic, if and when the Supreme Court chooses to actually pronounce judgement, rather than reserving it, I'm not sure that the situation leaves WP:CENSOR remotely defensible. And that is the important point here, not what a faded pop star's husband gets up to in his spare time. 79.65.232.216 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

*husband. Thanks for making your motivations so clear AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

not sure where that bitchy comment comes from. 79.65.232.216 (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Privacy versus Libel / Defamation / WP:BLP

It is important to note that the Supreme Court's ruling https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0080-judgment.pdf relates to invasion of privacy and not to the possibility that the story being suppressed in England and Wales, but not in the rest of the world, is untrue. The following is taken from the Supreme Court Judgement. Note that at no point is any suggestion made that either the threesome, nor the reports of it, are false:

Quote from UK Supreme Court ruling

The facts 4. We can for the most part take the facts from Jackson LJ’s judgment in the Court of Appeal. PJS, the claimant (now the appellant) is in the entertainment business and is married to YMA, a well-known individual in the same business. They have young children. In 2007 or 2008, the claimant met AB and, starting in 2009, they had occasional sexual encounters. AB had a partner, CD. By text message on 15 December 2011, the claimant asked if CD was “up for a three-way”, to which AB replied that CD was. The three then had a three-way sexual encounter, after which the sexual relationship between PJS and AB came to an end, though they remained friends for some time. 5. By or in early January 2016, AB and CD approached the editor of the Sun on Sunday, and told him about their earlier sexual encounters with PJS. The editor notified PJS that he proposed to publish the story. PJS’s case is that publication would breach confidence and invade privacy. He brought the present proceedings accordingly, and applied for an interim injunction to restrain the proposed publication. 6. Cranston J refused an interim injunction on 15 January, but the Court of Appeal (Jackson and King LJJ) on 22 January 2016 allowed an appeal and restrained publication of the relevant names and of details of their relationship: [2016] EWCA Civ 100. The Court provided the parties with its full judgment, but published only a redacted version omitting the names and details. 7. The injunction was effective for eleven weeks, but AB took steps to get the story published in the United States. In consequence a magazine there published an account of PJS’s sexual activities on 6 April 2016, naming those involved. But, as a result of representations by the appellant’s solicitors, it restricted publication to hardcopy editions only, and “geo-blocked” online publication so as to restrict this to the United States. The evidence is that, apart from the one further state publication, the story was not taken up in America. Some other similar articles followed in Canada and in a Scottish newspaper. But, whatever the source, details started to appear on numerous websites, one of which contained equivalent detail to that which had appeared in the American magazine, as well as in social media hashtags. 8. Various English and Welsh newspapers have in these circumstances published vigorous complaints about their own inability to publish material which was available on the internet. The Times on 8 April 2016 reported that the injunction was being “flouted on social media” after the “well-known” man was named in the US and that the Society of Editors had condemned such injunctions as “bringing the whole system into disrepute”. The Sun on 10 April 2016 called “on our loyal readers to help end the farce that means we can’t tell you the full story of the celebrity father’s threesome” by writing to their MPs “to get them to voice the public outcry in parliament and bring an end to this injustice”. It set out a suggested form of letter. It appears that an MP was by 11 April 2016 proposing to name the appellant in Parliament, something that intervention by the Speaker may have prevented. The Mail Online on 14 April 2016 reported that it had held a survey which “found that 20 percent of the public already know who he is while others said they know how to find out”. The online tool Google Trends shows a massive increase in the number of internet searches relating to the appellant and YMA by their true names. 9. The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant’s solicitors have been assiduous in monitoring the internet and taking steps, wherever possible, to secure removal of offending information from URLs and web pages, but concluded that this was a hopeless task: the same information continued to reappear in new places, and tweets and other forms of social networking also ensured its free circulation. On the other hand, the evidence of the appellant’s solicitor, Mr Tait, is that social media are responding to objections of invasion of privacy, that a material number of links has been removed, disabled or become inactive and that Mr Tait is confident that, with the continuation of the injunction, this process will continue and it will become increasingly difficult to identify the appellant online. In the light of the Court of Appeal’s assessment and its own review of the material available, the Supreme Court must however assume that a significant body of internet material identifying those involved by name and reproducing details from the original American publication about their alleged activities still exists and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The issue of WP:BLP does not seem to arise at all since all parties appear to accept that what are being referred to on this page as "allegations" are, in their substance, true. The UK Supreme Court evidently does not make fastidious distinctions about whether 'The National Enquirer' and other publications are reliable sources or not, but clearly nor do the appellants, who could sue if the "allegations" were untrue. 79.65.234.99 (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but BLP articles have to cite reliable secondary sources. It would be WP:OR to say "Since PJS and YMA haven't sued for libel, the olive oil saga must be true." The source that published the details of the olive oil saga and named the people involved, the National Enquirer, would fail BLP by a mile, and other sources are basically repeating what the NE said. It is also worth pointing out that PJS denied having unprotected sex with AB or CD during the olive oil saga, so at least one element of the NE coverage is in dispute.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

So. Let's get this straight (sic). The Toronto Star Canadian newspaper reporting at second hand would be considered a WP:RS and in this case it has reported what has been published elsewhere, making it a reliable secondary source as to the nature of what has been published? And therefore there is nothing to prevent a WP editor outside England and Wales adding that to this article - or indeed to the one about the fading pop star's husband? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.234.215 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sufficient concerns have been raised about the Toronto Star and National Post articles that an WP:RFC would be needed to establish consensus that they are reliable on the identity of PJS before adding it to the article. On the one hand, they do cite the inherently unreliable National Enquirer (though the Straits Times does not). On the other, they are generally reliable sources that can be presumed to have done their own fact-checking, and the Supreme Court of the UK has confirmed the accuracy of the media reports on this point. And aside from whether there are any reliable sources on this point, there is the general reluctance of reliable sources to name the parties, which may inform our choice. It's a complicated issue.--Trystan (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's still a grey area, because the vast majority of the mainstream media (CNN etc) has decided not to name the people involved. This is due to the lurid and largely tabloid nature of the story.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• There is an excellent American news video about the PJS case here, but in line with most overseas coverage, it hasn't named the people involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Good article

This is starting to look a pretty decent article. Maybe it will make the main page one day - Streisand effect? DanielJCooper (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's good-ish, but I tend not to worry about things like GA or getting the article on the main page. What is clear is that PJS v News Group Newspapers is now much more than a 2016 tabloid newspaper story involving olive oil. It has raised important issues about freedom of speech in the age of the Internet, and how England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland interact.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you think you have enough expertise to look at Super-injunctions in English law. I am getting confused as to how many *known* super-injunction cases there actually are. Have I listed all the ones you know? or included some that are not super-injunctions at all?. It doesn't help that the term is used incorrectly even in broadsheet newspapers! DanielJCooper (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The term "super-injunction" is often said to have been invented by Alan Rusbridger in September 2009 to describe the injunction in the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump (Trafigura) affair. It doesn't seem to appear in media coverage prior to 2009. Even the existence of the Trafigura injunction was initially a secret, but this was lifted in October 2009 for it to become published as an "anonymised privacy injunction" with "alphabet soup" blanking out key details. This has led to a lot of confusion in the media, with published injunctions being referred to as super-injunctions when they are not. Lord Neuberger recommended against doing this, but the media still does it, and has been doing it frequently in PJS v News Group Newspapers. If you can find a transcript of the case on BAILII, it cannot be a super-injunction or a hyper-injunction according to the Neuberger definitions. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Public Domain

The question of when something is actually considered to be in the Public Domain has also been raised by this case. The ruling goes against the ICO guidelines regarding the definition of public domain. Also as the American Publication who initially published the story (for once in their history) got the story under sworn affidavit I believe it would have to be counted as a reliable source, but only in this instance. MattiasDhlb (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Is "the Public Domain" a global concept, or does it differ between different national legal jurisdictions? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It varies. Here is the UK ICO guidance on when something is considered to be public domain in England and Wales (note para 16) MattiasDhlb (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a definition of "public domain" for the purposes of the Information Commissioner's Office deciding whether it is reasonable for a public authority in the UK to divulge information it holds to an enquirer, or to withhold it on the grounds that it is already "in the public domain" and therefore there is no need to provide it again. Its relevance to this issue is tenuous to say the least.79.65.232.158 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

So the ICO merely reflects what the UK legal system has already decided? But where does Wikipedia define "public domain"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I would believe this page itself is public domain by English legal definition, the Wikipedia page on public domain doesn't seem to touch upon CK. However, it relates to the case insomuch as the Supreme Court have decided the information is not in the public domain in England & Wales (per the wording of the order issued on January 22nd, giving permission to anyone to repeat facts that are in the public domain in para 13 ), and therefore upheld the order, even if it is not explicitly stated in the ruling. MattiasDhlb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but it is a grey area. What seems to have happened is that the lawyers for PJS and YMA have decided that if a person in England and Wales can read it, then it is considered to be published there for legal purposes. They have been sending out copious amounts of communcations to anyone who a) may live in England or Wales and b) are outside the UK but may have published on the Internet in a way that can be read in England and Wales. This leads to problems on the Internet, as material on a server computer outside England and Wales is not subject to UK jurisdiction. This is what Paul Staines said when he published the material, as he is based in the Republic of Ireland and his server computers are in the USA. Wikipedia content is also hosted under U.S. law. The real problem here is WP:BLP, as the only source to publish the olive oil saga in full is the National Enquirer, which would fail BLP guidelines by a mile. This is why the alleged names of PJS and YMA are not in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian - I know that American Publication (I can't name) is not considered a reliable source usually, and has often printed downright lies, but I do wonder whether the fact they have a sworn affidavit from AB who sold them the story would carry weight in this instance. The Scottish newspaper also carried it as a front page article after receiving the original affidavit obtained by NGN. Not sure if there were two separate affidavits, but due diligence was performed by the papers before publishing this particular story (a first for everything) MattiasDhlb (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Four UK Supreme Court judges decided to continue with the injunction despite being aware of the fact that everyone who is interested in the olive oil saga (which isn't everyone) knows who it is by now. It is undoubtedly a weird situation. If The New York Times decided to treat its readers to the full details of the olive oil saga, which is unlikely, there would be no real barrier to using it as a source on Wikipedia. However, as WP:BLPSOURCES says: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

How reliable is the fact that the court itself accidentally leaked the name to online legal sources? I think all traces have now gone, but the online database which logs DMCA requests has the URLs of the legal publications who just copy-pasted then were hastily contacted to remove. Apologies, not trying to be confrontational, just trying to work out the Wikipedia rules as a relative newbie! MattiasDhlb (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I always like to see inputs from newbies, Mattias. I'm sure your input is perfectly valid. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's suppose that the identities of PJS and YMA had appeared on the front page of The Sun or The Daily Mail today. Normally this would easily fail Wikipedia's BLP policy. It is only the court action that has inflated this to the point where it reaches WP:GNG. As for the DMCA action, I have heard about this, but there would need to be sources that passed WP:V, which there don't seem to be.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll name the database - it's the Lumen Database that compiles all DMCA and Court Order requests for removal. Search on the name and you'll see that Web Sheriff and - separately - Carter-Ruck Solicitors have, acting for PJS, requested removal of a number of links. One of those links was the accidental unredacted court order, which was posted to Bailii, and therefore also Practical Law and other websites who scrape it or use it as reference. MattiasDhlb (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Identities of PJS and YMA

Re this edit: I doubt if anyone with access to the Internet is going to faint with shock on reading this, but the question is one of WP:BLP policy. The material is subject to an injunction in England and Wales, and was always a piece of tabloid gossip of no huge importance. I've reverted this somewhat reluctantly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As the person who keeps making the edits, my stance is this: If it were solely a piece of tabloid gossip, then there wouldn't be a Wiki page on the injunction. Numerous respectable papers around the world have revealed their names, some (like my source) based on the legal decision to initially allow British papers to publish the names. Adding the identities of PJS and YMA thus adds important context to the history of the injunction, irrespective of its salaciousness. In addition, pages on other injunctions name the people involved, such as Ryan Giggs; should we remove those names because it's "tabloid gossip", or even remove every "Personal Life" section of every living celebrity for the same reason? Finally, the Wikipedia notice at the top of the talk page states:

The topic of this article is the subject of an anonymised privacy injunction within the United Kingdom. Editors in England and Wales should exercise caution when editing or commenting on the topic of this article and may wish to consider any personal legal implications.

I am an American editor based in America on an American-hosted site using a Singaporean source for the information; as neither I nor the paper are subject to the injunction (which is over 2½ years old anyway), and since Wiki's notice doesn't actually outright ban this information, it should be retained on this and other related pages.

I plan on undoing the reversion and I politely ask that you all please respect the edit -- I really don't want to go through an edit war just to provide a complete and informative picture of what happened. No one wins when that happens. We should be supporting more information, not less. 66.193.103.195 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a time limit on this injunction? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. My point in including the time limit is that revealing their names here won't actively harm them anymore than has been done by Twitter and media all around the world back in 2016. The information has been out there a long time and thus the scandal over it has died down -- why not include the names for context? 66.193.103.195 (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the injunction is permanent. And presumably was made that way to ensure that "no future harm" would come to the individuals concerned. Your point of view may be a perfectly valid one, but it's not one that carries the legal weight of a UK High Court judgement, is it? I think there is a general principle at stake here that needs to be made 100% clear in a ruling on Wikipedia policy. Where would be the most appropriate forum in which that could be discussed? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've cited WP:BLP here, because a) I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion and b) BLP policy is typically more important than what a court does or doesn't say. If this story had been published in The Sun as originally intended, it would have been a 24 hour tabloid wonder. Wikipedia is not The Sun or the National Enquirer. Personally, I was more interested when Lord Mance said in June 2018 that there was ""no point" in trying to keep secret identities that have been widely published both online and abroad." Well, you said it, Jonathan, but didn't say this in court in May 2016. The point that this was routine tabloid scandalmongering was the underlying message of the UK Supreme Court ruling, and I don't have much of a problem with this assessment. It was the decision of PJS and YMA to spend a huge amount of money on legal action that made all of this pass WP:GNG, which it definitely wouldn't have done otherwise. As for naming PJS and YMA, I'm not sure if this meets BLP guidelines and we may need further input on this, possibly at WP:ANI or WP:BLPN.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Now raised at WP:BLPN.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The injunction considered by the Supreme Court was an interim injunction, but its content was ultimately included in the final order in the action, so in essence it is now permanent.

I had argued above for inclusion of the claimant’s identity in the article, but that should not be done without first building consensus to do so, and definitely not by edit-warring.

The way the addition has been worded is particularly problematic and should be immediately reverted as a BLP violation. It gives the wrong impression as to who PJS is. YMA’s identity is only of peripheral relevance to this as a legal proceeding, as he was not a party. A focus on him, being the more famous of the couple, suggests that the inclusion is indeed driven by an interest in tabloid gossip.—Trystan (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I agree. What is your view on the comparison with Ryan Giggs? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who has been round the block knows that The Sun is involved in a long running feud with YMA. This is one of the reasons why I am wary of naming PJS and YMA, because it appears to be stoking the feud. However, I'm not going to revert without further input from other editors. As for CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd, the UK media decided that it could report Giggs' name after John Hemming used parliamentary privilege. Peter Hain did the same thing in the House of Lords with Philip Green. A person in the UK could still get into trouble for naming PJS and YMA, so the warning template at the top of the page is appropriate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I fully understand that people in England and Wales can get in trouble for adding the information. However, I as an American editor am not bound by the injunction. Neither is Wikipedia, being based in America as well. And again, Wikipedia does not say that this information is verboten -- just that UK editors should exercise caution when adding that information. If the intent of the notice is to block this content, the notice should be reworded to explicitly forbid adding it, regardless of jurisdiction. As the notice is worded now, however, it does not apply to information added from editors outside the UK. 66.193.103.195 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As the person who made the edits, I reject the notion that my inclusion is "driven by an interest in tabloid gossip." I am actually driven by an interest in fighting censorship. I would gladly reword the statement to solely include the identity of PJS, if YMA's celebrity status is the main issue here. That way, people can discover who the other party might be on their own. However, I still stand by the notion that at least one of the two parties needs to be named here for context and informative purposes, not "gossip" that has already been settled long ago. Plus, the reputable source I used does mention both names as "the couple" who filed the injunction, and I was merely reporting the same. 66.193.103.195 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What you say is not unreasonable. But I am looking for little clarity here, in what seems to be a very contradictory situation. How can it be correct for "editors in England and Wales", even long-standing editors with clearly published identities, to have to "exercise caution", while anonymous editors registered at, for example Beaverton, Oregon, can do as they please? Perhaps you we be so good as to discuss further at the WP:BLPN thread? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I did make a short comment there already. However, I will gladly expand upon that to discuss my intentions and thoughts on this matter when I get the chance. That way, this discussion can be in the proper place. My apologies if I didn't follow protocol. 66.193.103.195 (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be perfectly level-headed and not some kind of drive-by IP vandal (mercifully in short supply here). Policy seems a little muddled here, or at least not consistently applied? We can't expect me or Ian, for example, to check, or even know with any certainty, where any editor is physically located, before reverting their well-intentioned addition, in an attempt to protect them (not Wikipedia, of course) from breaking the law? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know too much about the goings-on inside the Wikimedia Foundation. However, the notice implies that UK residents can interact with this article at their own risk. Therein lies the problem with trying to apply a single country's law to an international site, especially one headquartered in a jurisdiction with free speech protections that would make these kinds of injunctions unenforceable. With content that won't get Wikipedia in legal trouble (read: excluding things like copyright infringement), I personally don't believe it should be Wikipedia/Wikimedia's job to scrub content to protect an editor from their own legal consequences. That said, those editors should have ample warning that they are doing so at their own risk. In this case, the risk is only on people inside the UK, and really only England and Wales at that -- there is no legal risk to someone in the United States or even Scotland, for example, for reporting on what English/Welsh editors cannot. 66.193.103.195 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• As a UK editor conversant in UK law - the injunction is a general injunction and applies anywhere UK law applies to UK residents, regardless of if the material is stored elsewhere. So any UK-based editor who places or edits the prohibited material is potentially at risk of arrest and being prosecuted. Its completely unenforceable to any editor outside the UK. A US editor making edits in the US on material stored on US servers is not going to get a deportation request because the treaty that governs it doesnt work that way and the US is not about to extradite a US citizen who has not committed a crime in the US unless they are explicitly bound by treaty to do so. There is still a technical issue in that if the material is added to the article, and a UK based editor then edits the article/section/material and leaves it in there, it could be argued that they have aided in its publication. Hence the caution/warning. So really, if the material is included and you are in the UK, unless you are really really certain in your anonymity, dont touch the article. The WMF will not withhold your IP when requested by the authorities as their (lack of) liability is dependant on not being responsible for what user-generated content is posted, but the catch is they cannot prevent or hinder legal attempts to identify someone who is breaking the law. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• So why does the caution, at the top of this Talk page, specifically mention only "Editors in England and Wales"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry I was assuming you were asking as a non-UK resident and didnt want to go into too much detail. UK has effectively three law systems covering the regions, when I use 'UK Law' I mean England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own law and judicial systems. Scots Law being a mixture of the continental Civil Law and the UK's Common Law. An injunction in the English court system only applies to England & Wales. Which is why Scottish newspapers have often in the past printed material that is under injunction in England/Wales (see here for some background). However to be safe as an editor I would not touch it in Scotland or NI either, because you are well within reach of the English/Welsh court system. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I see. You meant Law of England and Wales. But hey sure, maybe the sheriff will send a posse out. Via Douglas, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have, as a UK resident, sent (requested politely) a Texas Sheriff out because of a Texas script-kiddie DOS'ing one of my servers in the UK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think you are very wise. So glad you didn't do something rash. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You won't be able to find a New York Times or CNN story naming PJS and YMA, because they decided to accept the outcome of the UK court ruling. This was never about the extramarital affair of PJS, it was about The Sun continuing its feud with YMA. We've had arguments before like "I'm a US citizen and Wikipedia is hosted on US servers", but this doesn't alter the fact that the UK Supreme Court banned publication of the story. This was a tempest in a tabloid teapot blown out of all proportion by the legal action it generated, and it is hard to explain this without doing what The Sun really wants, which is to use PJS as a way of getting at YMA.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You won't be able to find a New York Times or CNN story naming PJS and YMA, because they decided to accept the outcome of the UK court ruling.

<citation needed>, please. --Calton | Talk 05:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

CNN and the NYT could have busted Ryan Giggs any time that they liked, but they didn't. They probably didn't think it was worth it for a tabloid news story in the UK. Nevertheless, they have expressed concern over the UK's privacy laws.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In other words, no, you don't have a citation or even evidence for your conclusion. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No, but they have no interest in furthering UK tabloid feuds by breaking injunctions. Why would they be interested in doing this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Canvassing available sources outside England and Wales does indicate a general reluctance to name the claimant. For example, while the Toronto Star initially named the couple, in their follow-up coverage they did not. That second story indicates they intended to keep the first story up, yet it appears to have been taken down by May 2016.

Looking at all Canadian reliable sources as an example, I can find two (National Post and Global) that name the claimant, and three (Toronto Star, CBA National, and CTV that do not.--Trystan (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The National Enquirer was the main US source and the other foreign media coverage was typically recycling what it had said. The most interesting coverage was in the Sunday Mail (Scotland). This named PJS and YMA even though Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. However, their lawyers had told them that the injunction did not apply in Scotland as long as they did not carry the story on their website.[10] So only print editions carried the names, likewise with the National Enquirer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"without more"

The judgement given in this source, as quoted in the article, says: "Every case must be considered on its particular facts. But the starting point is that (i) there is not, without more, any public interest in a legal sense in the disclosure or publication of purely private sexual encounters, even though they involve adultery or more than one person at the same time,..." So "without more" what, exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This comes from Lord Mance, and I think he is referring to the "limited public interest" angle quoted elsewhere in the ruling. The WP:TLDR is that four of the Supreme Court judges thought that PJS's extramarital activity did not have a sufficient public interest justification to make it worth a front page national news story. Some people might argue that this is a matter of editorial rather than legal judgement, but Von Hannover v Germany is the usual yardstick in privacy cases. If the court believes that there is a "a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution" it is likely to ban publication.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)