Archive for May 9th, 2011

May 9, 2011

Revealing photo of James Middleton ‘checking his goods’ – he considers $1 million offer for gay sex scene

[Dolly Grinfeld, Gay and Transgendered Community Contributor]

The gay and transgendered community on the Internet can’t seem to have enough of its spanking  new celebrity royal ‘queen’, James Middleton. A latest photo shows James ‘checking his goods’ prior to accepting (only rumours so far) an offer by the adult filmaker, Steven Hirsch, of $1 million for a sex scene in an adult movie.

Good luck James, you are fab!

May 9, 2011

Twitter and other social media sites legally bound to obey UK superinjunctions

[Jenny Lang, Law & Courts Contributor]

Regarding the widespread confusion about the enforceability of UK ‘superinjunctions’, iTOD contributor, Jenny Lang, seeks to bring light on the subject.

For those of you who don’t know this, ‘superinjunctions’ refer to privacy orders given by a UK court whereby it becomes a contempt of court (punishable by imprisonment and fine) for the specified private details, about a person to be published, or for it to be revealed that they had sought the injunctions.

Contrary to confusing information abounding about the worldwide enforceability of the injunctions, the reality is that in fact, they can bind the whole world. They are not cheap – in the UK, they cost around £120,000 to achieve.  However, in other jurisdictions, eg., Pacific Islands, New Zealand, Australia, the cost may be considerably less expensive, but just as effective as it is possible to get the injunctions in any jurisdiction where this is not prohibited by the awarding country’s constitution, or similar laws. In particular,  courts of record (eg., High Court) in common law countries have an inherent right to grant these injunctions.  The USA, however, is an exception as the First Amendment of its constitution specifically prohibits the right to privacy of individuals.

What this means that worldwide publishers, be they Internet based, or not, will not be able to ignore the injunctions as most countries, like the USA, reciprocate judgment recognitions and enforcements under reciprocity protocols. As such for an Internet hosting site, or search engine to ignore a court order would be perilous. That is why Twitter was bound to ‘redact’ the list of published names of the ‘superinjuncted’ recently and Wikipedia in a similar situation recently, had done the same.

May 9, 2011

The emergence of England’s newest royal ‘queen’, James Middleton

[Arnold Brown, Royal Contributor]

The brother of the newest member of the British royal family, Kate Middleton, is the worldwide gay community‘s newest icon as a site (http://www.fleshbot.com) showing nude and gay-themed photos (as featured above) of the dashing aristocrat, has got close to 500,000 hits in less than a week. Elsewhere on the Internet, ‘James Middleton gay’ continues to bring in countless hits.

All that together with a still unrejected offer by the adult film producer, Steven Hirsch, for James to appear in an adult film for $1 million for one scene, is giving rise to speculation that  James will truly modernise the rather po face of the British monarchy.

Keep it up James (pardon the pun!).

May 9, 2011

Pippa Middleton response to $5 million porn offer from Stephen Hirsch

[Cheps Stunker, Celebrities Contributor]

TMZ  Steven Hirsch, the USA-based multi-millionaire producer of adult films, has offered the youngest sister of Kate Middleton (right of the picture), a starring role in a porn film which will enable her to have a choice of partner, or partners and for one scene only to get a whopping $5 million.  Mr. Hirsh also offered $1 million for her brother James for the same service.

Whilst the world awaits Pippa‘s response to Mr. Hirsch’s rather interesting public offer, there are concerns that it may have spoiled the high-society flavour of the ‘wedding of the century’ event of the marriage of her sister, Kate Middleton to a future king of England.

Since the recent widely-publicised British royal wedding, Pippa Middleton has gone on to be the world hottest media celebrity.

May 9, 2011

Privacy superinjunctions on Twitter

[Paul Jensen, LLB Courts and Law Contributor]

MailOnline reports that British newspapers are up in arms over the increasing prevalence of UK ‘superinjuctions’ and are delighted that it seems that Twitter has apparently flouted these privacy court orders by allowing one of its users to set up an account called ‘superinjunctions’ whereby the names of the British celebrities taking out the measures were named.

However, the media’s delight may well be short-lived, as today I searched Twitter and came up with the account and the list of names, but found that Twitter had moderated the list, so that the names were no longer available to be seen.

For those of you who don’t know this, ‘superinjunctions’ refer to privacy orders given by a UK court whereby it becomes a contempt of court (punishable by imprisonment and fine) for the specified private details about a person to be published. The injunctions can bind the whole world and generally cost around £120,000 to achieve in the UK.  However, in other jurisdictions, eg., Pacific Islands, New Zealand, Australia, the cost may be considerably less expensive, but just as effective.

Effectively, it is possible to get the injunctions in any jurisdiction where this is not prohibited by the country’s constitution, or similar laws. In particular,  courts of record (eg., High Court) in common law countries have an inherent right to grant these injunctions.  The USA, however, is an exception as the First Amendment of its constitution specifically prohibits the right to privacy of individuals. This glaring omission has created a raging monsters of ‘blogplainting’ whereby dissing can be done via multitude of complaint boards quickly and effectively upon anyone, by anyone no matter whether the complaints, or published materials are true or false.

The sad news for the British media is that it will be difficult for USA-based publishers, be they Internet based, or not, to circumvent the UK courts’ privacy orders as a result of the USA courts’ reciprocity of judgments recognition protocols which provide for USA courts to respect and enforce orders from any jurisdiction that has reciprocity of judgment recognition with the USA.  Hence Twitter’s quick action to ‘redact’ the list of published names.  Similarly, a few weeks ago, Wikipedia faced with a similar problem, removed the offending postings.