In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Indeed he did. LJJ is in general a fool, and demonstrating it on this occasion. But presumably you agree with him, and he's the highest legal authority whose views are presently known, so why are you suggesting the English courts are on a power trip?
Sure, I agree with him except that when 56% of people know the private information it is not 'confidentiality has probably been lost' the confidentiality is non-existent. The problem is the English courts issued the injunction in the first place, are making threats in order to enforce it even though it is blatantly ineffective and haven't removed it even though the appeal judges were pretty clear it was pointless.
So here we are pussy-footing around not saying names which we all know for no good reason except that a bunch of King Canute wannabees in robes and wigs are threatening us even though they themselves have stated the threats are pointless. I'm in Scotland and not even subject to the injunction issued by English courts but their extra-territorial ambition is still affecting my ability to speak freely on the internet.
The more serious aspect is that this is quite likely to lead to firewalls on the internet and attempts to prevent UK residents accessing non-UK based search engines in order to give courts the ability to enforce injunctions on internet content.
> 44% don't care enough to google it, I dare say. That doesn't mean it's right there should be a lovingly detailed splash all over the Scum's front page, or that it should be on the six o'clock news.
I'm not sure what your angle is here. It was you that posted the original message which with 3 minutes Googling lead to the names of the people having sex at Waterloo. So why post the message if keeping their confidentiality is so important. Is it OK for things to be all over the internet as long as the newspapers can't print them?