As has been widely reported on both sides of the Atlantic, a “public figure” in the United Kingdom is currently waiting to hear whether his legal effort to stop two media outlets from publishing allegations of “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activity with girls and young women” has been successful.
Lawyers for the man, who denies the allegations, are seeking so-called permanent injunctions against The Guardian and ITN to prevent them from publishing what they told London’s high court last week was a “wide-ranging and meticulous investigation” carried out over four years and involving more than 30 sources who provided first-hand information.
The legal team’s argument, which they themselves admit, is “extremely exceptional”: that publishing the allegations against the individual and revealing his identity would “most likely drive him to suicide”.
The unusual case has become a major focus of debate in the UK, amid widespread speculation on social media about the celebrity’s identity. But is the claim that this publication will have a “potentially lethal effect” really be legally valid?
That’s according to Paul Tweed, a prominent Northern Irish defamation lawyer who has represented a number of high-profile clients including Harrison Ford, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez and Justin Timberlake.
Tweed acknowledges that such celebrity privacy injunctions, once infamous in the British media (often referred to as a “super injunction” although technically it also prohibits reporting its existence), have now become rare. However, he says that the individual’s legal request can be accepted in court.
“If there is a real risk of suicide, danger to life” is one of “the very few remaining fundamental justifications” for such a measure in today’s world, he claims. “But this needs to be approved by a qualified psychiatrist and any other medical support the court may require.”
He stated that such evidence would be examined intensively by the judge.
“The court is not taking this lightly; they will be looking very carefully at whether there is a real risk of suicide or whether this is just being used as an excuse.”
According to The Times, the unnamed man at the center of the investigation wrote directly to both The Guardian and ITN in September when asked to respond to their allegations. In his response, he said that if his stories were published or published, I would kill myself at the first opportunity. His lawyer told the court last week that he had previously attempted to take his own life because of the story.
“This is not a case where an individual falsely raised ‘mental health’ concerns in the face of a publication that he did not want to be published anytime soon,” he told the court. “As a result of these events, the plaintiff attempted suicide twice, was hospitalized for months, was kept in involuntary detention, and was examined by more than one – currently more than 10 – doctors.”
The news organizations’ lawyer, meanwhile, argued there was a “strong” public interest in publishing “numerous allegations” against the individual, who he claimed abused his status “over the years.”
“Many of the women who reported these allegations were traumatized by the plaintiff’s alleged conduct and suffered mental health crises and mental illness as a result,” she said, according to Press Gazette, adding that approving the injunction would require UK authorities to intervene in the media’s “lawful journalistic activities” to prevent “an autonomous action by the plaintiff herself.”
But Tweed notes that if the injunction is implemented, the case’s op-eds and widespread online chatter already highlight how trying to suppress information can backfire. He points to a famous case in which Barbra Streisand’s effort to sue a photographer over an aerial photo of her Malibu mansion resulted in online demand to see the image skyrocket.
“In the age of social media, caution is much less effective, as this particular case shows,” he says. “So seeking an injunction knowing that people will speculate on social media, true or false, risks the Barbra Streisand Effect.”
The current situation, which is expected to be resolved by a judge this week, has sparked outrage in the UK over press freedom issues and fears that if the injunction is upheld, the claim could be used by others accused of sexual harassment.
“Finally various figures in show business are being forced to respond to accusations against them that have been around for centuries,” Ian Hislop, editor of the satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye, told The Times. “And if the first thing that happens is that they don’t have to do it because it affects their mental health, then that doesn’t seem very fair to all the accusers. I know it sounds incredibly callous, but I think it would set a very dangerous precedent if it were allowed to happen.”