What is the point in getting a super-injunction? In the age of Twitter, anyone who wants to find out which celebrities have been up to no good can - and will - do just that. The trouble is, I think that in certain cases a super-injunction IS justified.
It's obviously difficult to approach this topic without making reference to specific cases and if I were to do that, I could find myself in a lot of trouble. However, it's difficult to judge which cases are deserving of a injunction and which aren't. Do you go by profession? Likelyhood that it's willing to upset children or just affect sponsors? Level of famewhoreness?
The whole super-injunction issue entered the public consciousness with the John Terry affair. I personally think that it's fair that his super-injunction was overturned. Not because I think that the British public particularly deserve to know exactly what Terry is up to in his private life - at the end of the day, that's his own business. I just think it's wrong that he tried to throw money at a problem to make it go away - a problem that only arose because he failed to keep it in his pants. If there is any justification for these Draconian privacy laws, this is certainly not it.