The ability of disclosures on Twitter to make nonsense of privacy injunctions is causing understandable consternation at present (Privacy laws in chaos as MP names Giggs over injunction, 24 May).
The solution may lie in distinguishing between the rights of private individuals and those of public figures, as happens in the US. In the UK we make no such distinction and sporting figures, celebrities and politicians enjoy the same expectation of privacy as private citizens. While that expectation is balanced against any public interest in disclosure, UK law does not recognise that the public persona of a celebrity gives rise in itself to any such public interest.
In the US the position is different. There, both privacy and libel laws distinguish between private individuals and public figures. The rationale is that the conduct of public figures is capable of having a significant effect upon the behaviour, lifestyle and culture of the general population. This gives rise to the necessary public interest in disclosure of their conduct, and public figures are only protected by privacy laws in exceptional circumstances.
Introducing a similar distinction in the UK would largely resolve the injunction/Twitter debate, because privacy injunctions would not generally be available to public figures. Unlike a Premier League footballer, a private individual who obtains an injunction is unlikely to be the subject of widespread gossip on social media sites. The only necessary change to the law would be a recognition that, in contrast with the present position, there is a public interest in the conduct of those individuals who choose to place themselves in the public eye.
Steven Maier
Head of media litigation, Manches LLP
• The prime minister has shown the good sense to admit superinjunctions and other assorted gagging orders are becoming farcical in the face of the Twittersphere. David Cameron also effectively acknowledged the existence of a two-tier media landscape in which mainstream newspapers and broadcasters are "unfairly" handicapped while an impossible to police social networking frenzy renders gagging orders largely impotent. As a former national newspaper editor turned PR consultant I knew for some time the names of the celebrities involved. But I hadn't really expected my two young sons, aged 10 and eight, to come bouncing home from school a few afternoons ago to name Ryan Giggs, the eight-year-old's football hero, plus another player with a gagging order, and announce that it was the talk of the playground. Even Mr Justice Eady and our judicial hierarchy must surely now concede they look like latterday King Canutes floundering to turn back the tide in the internet age. Out of the mouths of babes indeed...
Paul Connew
Former editor, Sunday Mirror, and deputy editor, Daily Mirror and News of the World
• David Cameron has a responsibility to absorb the complexity of any given situation, but instead he appears to have swiftly taken a populist view of the events of the last few days and endorsed the mass online outcry over injunctions.
There is no doubt the landslide towards total disclosure was inevitable as of yesterday morning, but it was the comments of a coalition politician known for his campaigning on freedom of speech that finally unmuzzled the country's press. Was John Hemming primed? Was he given the nod by Downing Street? If so, the machiavellian move is of less interest than the reasoning behind it.
There is a sense of manipulation from start to finish in this affair. It is almost certain that a journalist leaked this to Twitter in the first place to test the boundaries of injunctions. And once momentum built, the process became a ruthless race to the denouement – fuelled by outraged editorials whipping the population into a frenzy, leading to the great simultaneous unveiling across the English media of the protagonist.
Will we walk away from this in any way bettered? Sure, we can now pore over every juicy detail of an alleged affair. We have been given permission to enjoy the failings of another human once again in the interests of free speech.
And finally, when the dust settles, we are left with a broken family, a prime minister who has shown his true colours as a calculating and potentially highly manipulative politician, and the rampant British press. I for one feel slightly sick.
Robin Thornton
Bulford, Wiltshire
• The ability of MPs to speak freely in parliament is a bedrock of our democracy, and parliamentary privilege exists to protect us in doing so. But with privilege comes a responsibility to use it wisely.
The decision by John Hemming to name an individual who has taken out an injunction was wrong on two counts. First, it failed to distinguish between what may be interesting to people and what is in the public interest. Second, whether we keep our current law on privacy as expressed in the Human Rights Act or choose to amend it in some way through the work of the joint committee now being set up, it will still be for the courts to interpret the law in individual cases. As MPs we should respect that, unless there are overwhelming reasons of public interest to do otherwise, because that is the best way in which to uphold the freedom of parliament to do its job.
Hilary Benn
Shadow leader of the House of Commons
• Parliamentary privilege is indeed a privilege, to be used with care and only when in the national interest to do so. Outing a footballer is hardly of any interest, national or otherwise. Using it to sate the tabloid press, and to dance attendance on social networks hardly meets the criteria either; nor does a cheap attempt to score points in a misconceived trial of strength with judges. A more mature and careful discussion of the issue of information diahorrea is called for – this action does not take it forward one step.
Rev H James Clarke
Brough, Cumbria