Super Mandates are typically won for privacy and human rights reasons. They are particularly difficult to digest because our embedded sense of justice, which accepts judicial restriction of our freedom of expression whenever the veracity of the intended publication is questionable, finds it difficult to logically accept similar restrictions on our freedom of expression when the intended publication is likely to be contains truthful information.
We have been brought up to believe that telling lies is wrong, but now it seems that the creators of the super mandate are telling us that telling the truth is wrong too. At any other time, this unhealthy mix of moral messages could have been seen as a massive blow to our democratic system, as well as to our personal and social values. However, the ongoing democratization of our world via the internet, which finds its underlying philosophy in Google’s search engine algorithms, which basically says: ‘let the community decide what is useful, important or even truthful’, has already started. to repair any damage to our moral values by insisting that truthful information should be published, if not by a newspaper, by regular Twitter users, if not in the UK, then outside the jurisdiction or enforcement power of the courts local. The democratic nature of the internet has made it impossible to enforce super injunctions around the world and Parliament must act quickly to bridge the gap between what the public accepts as morally wrong (i.e. telling false stories) and harsh penalties. that the judicial system is willing to impose. about those responsible for publishing true stories.
In the rapidly evolving world of the Internet, new laws have unintended and unpredictable consequences, meaning that judicial attempts to protect a person’s privacy are resulting in the forced exposure of the lives of innocent parties. Because Parliament has the resources to properly evaluate and develop the new law, in the circumstances it may be better to ensure that in the future, the law is developed more through Parliament and less through the Courts.
Meanwhile, for the simple reason that the posting of material on the Internet could be done from the remotest parts of the world, and by people who may care little about what our judges think, the superdirectors will suffer death at the hands of a mob and sooner or later, either the courts will just stop awarding them or celebrities will realize that in the fast-moving world of the internet, these super mandates will do them more harm than good.