@blakeyrat said:
@adrianmw said:The Human Rights Act is a law whose text is freely available.Christ.
The POINT is that even if you know the text of the law, you have no way of knowing what events are currently under such an injunction
From another part of my post:
@adrianmw said:
The basic rule is that, if you know the 'fact' and you know that there is an injunction preventing publication of said fact, then you are committing a criminal offence
If you don't know about the injunction, then in theory you cannot break it. And, self-fulfilling that that may sound, it is very unlikely that you will find out certain information without also discovering that there is also an injunction over it. To take the current example, how many people in the UK - outside his immediate circle of friends and family - knew about CTB's affair with Imogen Thomas but didn't know there was an injunction in place, even if they didn't know what an injunction actually was (never mind what the text of it actually says)?
@blakeyrat said:
Just by reading a foreign newspaper and tweeting something you learned in it.
No, I believe that this would not be contempt. You will have shown no contempt of the court that issued the injunction.
@blakeyrat said:
Moreover, if someone tried to advise you beforehand not to publish the fact, they would be in Contempt of Court.
I'm not sure about this one; after all, that is how the court would have notified the newspapers in the first place. Can you give a source for this one?
@blakeyrat said:
You don't find that utterly ridiculous?
I find it facinating. The law doesn't follow the logic as someone in IT would understand it, and that's what makes it all the more interesting.