The married celebrity who gagged the British media when it tried to report that he had a threesome with another couple cannot be named.
In a blow for the freedom of the press, Supreme Court judges in London have just upheld the ban on disclosing his identity.
The judges ruled 4 to 1 in favour of keeping the ban.
UKSC allows PJS’s appeal v News Group Newspapers: interim injunction to remain in place pending outcome of trial 1/4 https://t.co/EMPdrR1fVG
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) May 19, 2016
Earlier this year London-based paper The Sun on Sunday tried to report that the world-famous man texted a couple suggesting a “three-way” and was also offered the chance to have sex in a paddling pool filled with olive oil.
MORE: Trump tries to woo conservatives with SCOTUS picks
When the allegations were put to him, the individual successfully applied for a privacy order using Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been enshrined in English law since 1998.
Question for court is not purely about confidentiality (as it is evident this has been breached), but also about privacy of PJS & family 2/4
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) May 19, 2016
From that moment, any media source in England and Wales reporting his identity faced prosecution.
However, the gagging order soon became a farce, as the man was named in other legal jurisdictions including America, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.
MORE: David Furnish Demands Title as Husband of Sir Elton
Internet sources around the world have also been reporting his identity for weeks.
MORE: Is Kim Kardashian a secret agent infiltrating Iran?
What has most riled those who believe in the freedom of the press was that the man’s privacy injunction was issued by a family court which ruled that the individual, as a married man, has the right to keep his sexual liaison secret for the sake of his children.
Likely distress & intrusion for PJS and family in event of widespread English newspaper coverage continues to be highly relevant 3/4
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) May 19, 2016
On its own, no public interest (in legal sense) of disclosure of private sexual encounters, however famous those involved 4/4
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) May 19, 2016
As this injunction has been allowed to stand, a potentially disastrous precedent has been set.
It means that anyone rich enough to cover massive legal fees can effectively pay to keep their marital infidelities out of the public eye by using their children as a shield.
The great irony is that the case is now considered a classic example of the Streisand Effect, whereby an attempt to hide information has had the unintended consequence of publicizing it even more widely.
Photo via Flickr/Sunghwan Yoon
