Tiger Woods injunction leaves editors teed off

This will be my last post on the slightly tired Tiger Woods story. But while the tabloid bin-diving through the personal life, morals and commercial tribulations of a sports star and his alleged indiscretions may have run its course for me, even in light of Woods' latest statement, there is another element of this story which definitely deserves further comment.

Woods has secured an injunction through the High Court, preventing the UK press reporting certain emerging developments in this story. We know not what said details are, of course, but do know no such injunction is in place in the US.

Woods no doubt realises the global nature of the internet will soon drown out any injunction in isolated quarters of the global press pack but he can also rightly assert he has a reputation to protect in the UK and has every right to do so in the name of privacy.

But this is also the latest example of how accommodating our libel and privacy laws are for those able to meet the costs.

It seems unlikely Woods should have a greater right to privacy 4,000 miles from home than he would on his own doorstep, but it's true and it's certainly got backs up on newspapers across the UK (Tiger Woods injunction makes an ass of the law, The Telegraph).  

Perhaps Visit Britain should add our privacy and libel laws to the list of reasons tourists should come to the UK.

"Come to Britain where favourable libel laws await! Visit Legoland Windsor and Windsor Castle in the morning, take out an injunction or maybe even sue somebody for libel in the afternoon, then in the evening take in a show."

Comments

[Alan Burkitt-Gray]

To be accurate, it's the English (and Welsh) High Court, whose writ runs only in England and Wales. Not the UK High Court. No such institution exists.
Scotland has a separate legal system, as does Northern Ireland. So the injunction of the High Court in London strictly applies only south of the English-Scottish border and on the eastern side of the Irish Sea.

[rory]

I'm sure there must be a caveat in confidence law that says that if the information is in the public domain then an injunction is not applicable. There maybe geographical limitations to this though.

[www.Dozensports.com]

Ok so Tiger Woods asked for us to respect his privacy… Is he in any position to make such a request? I agree, when it comes to the children, privacy should be respected. But Tiger is a grown man. Some sports news sites say he slept around and used his 'public image' to bed women, now he wants us all to back off. The switch of fame cannot be so easily turned off, Tiger.

[jacob]

Privacy is a human right, even for famous adulterers like Tiger.