A very interesting issue showed up in two of my regular podcasts this week (Search Engine, and BBC Digital Planet).
A British oil company called Trafigura spilled a significant amount of waste off the Ivory Coast in Africa. A short time later there was a significant increase in certain types of illnesses and deaths (note that we have a correlation here, but not a causation).
Rather than try to fight a PR war to claim they didn’t cause it, the company decided to cut the whole story off at the source, and got an injunction that the British newspaper The Guardian was not only prevented from reporting on the details of the debate over this spill in question period in the House of Commons, but they were prevented from reporting on the fact that they were not allowed to report on the story (this is a first in British law, apparently Trafigura has some extremely good lawyers).
The editor of the paper proceeded to tweet that he was frustrated that he couldn’t report on a question in the House, when those questions were a matter of public record.
Of course enterprising followers looked into it, figured out what the question must have been and proceeded to spread the information, leading to yet another example of the Streisand Effect, and a local story has turned into international news[1].
But this has left two questions floating around in my mind:
1. How is it even possible to justify banning a paper from reporting on something that is, by law, a matter of public record
2. By sending out the tweet, did the editor break the injunction? There’s a fine line between “I can’t talk about “, and “I can’t talk about something that is being talked about ”
[1] including showing up on this blog, something that likely wouldn’t have happened otherwise