For the past two days, the Daily Mail has been throwing a front page hissy-fit about lawyers preventing them from reporting some celebrity gossip.
Yes, these privacy injunctions can seem a bit of a silly anachronism which sometimes only serve to ensure greater publicity for the thing they were meant to hush up (not least because they Mail is doing a good job of telling people where they can find the details). But even more ridiculous is the Mail's petulant belief that it simply must be allowed to report what is clearly just a bit of celebrity gossip.
It's hard to imagine how this is in the public interest, however interesting the Mail thinks the public would find it.This isn't a principled stand in defence of a free press, they've just thrown a wobbler because someone's taken away their sex story. It's the journalistic equivalent of a child lying on the floor kicking and screaming because a parent confiscated their favourite toy.
The Sun meanwhile which feels similarly angry about the whole thing, has spoken to one third of the aforementioned threesome who feels his basic human right to talk to newspapers about somebody's private life has been infringed.
“We have been threatened with perjury, contempt of court and prison — all for telling the truth about this threesome."
“What about our human rights and freedom of expression?"
He doesn't explain why anybody else actually needs to know about this threesome.