Hear ye, hear ye! Satire is now deadl! Long live the queen!

[Lies]

Ok, not dead, but. ILLEGAL.
That's right- The royals have been catching on that the court jester has more power than them through the magic of satire, and have ordered their heads to be chopped off lest people get the wrong idea about the royals.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/27/3201554.htm?section=justin

The *only* reason I'd want to watch the royal wedding, being made illegal right before the wedding, proving that the royals are grey faced reptilians.

WHENEVER SOMEONE MENTIONS THE ROYAL WEDDING, I WANT YOU TO REPEAT AFTER ME: WHO IS THE QUEEN?? 

[Juana]

Oh FFS. Really? Thin skinned, much?

[Freeky]

"It seems a bit crazy for the royal family to be trying to dictate the way they get represented in the media," he said.

This line sort of gives me hope that not everyone is stupid and ready to give over rights that should be theirs maybe.

[Lies]

Next thing you know, this stuff is going to be banned now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA&feature=share

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

http://www.rathergood.com/corgis

[hooplala]

If this truly surprises anyone, you clearly haven't been paying attention up until now.

[Lies]

If this truly surprises anyone, you clearly haven't been paying attention up until now.

Not as surprised as just sayin, is all.

[Cain]

This is nothing.

Ever heard of a super-injunction?  It prevents the media from not only printing information about someone, it also prevents them from revealing they have been prevented from revealing information about someone.

Want to know how many the Royal Family have?  You can't.  A super-injunction has allegedly been taken out to prevent you from knowing. 

These are big news in the UK right now, as they cost £50,000 a pop, and so allow rich people to have privacy (especially footballers and journalists cheating on their wives) but are well beyond what the average family can afford, allowing privacy only for the very richest.  Of which the Royal Family must be considered part of.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Wait, what? Journalists in the UK are rich?

In America they're almost exclusively poor to lower middle class.

[Cain]

Depends.  Some are.  The well known, national ones tend to be.  Andrew Marr, who had a super-injunction taken out to prevent information that he had an affair and possibly fathered a child with his mistress (turned out he didn't, but thought he did) was certainly rich enough to afford it.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Wow, even the big-name journalists here are only middle to upper-middle class unless they've gotten lucky and banked off of books or something.

In the states we have prior restraint (usually issued through the courts in the form of an court-issued injunction), but they usually fail and the injunctions end up being temporary. I'm a little shocked to find that a western nation allows for such a thing so easily. I guess things have been lurching towards that for a while now.

[Lies]

Depends.  Some are.  The well known, national ones tend to be.  Andrew Marr, who had a super-injunction taken out to prevent information that he had an affair and possibly fathered a child with his mistress (turned out he didn't, but thought he did) was certainly rich enough to afford it.

So how do you know this then, out of curiosity?

[Cain]

It might be that because we have the BBC here and most of our papers go out at a national level (the local papers here are good...but its a very difficult business and most are on the edge of ruin) and so columnists and the top level correspondents can command very high wages.  I know Richard Littlejohn, who is a shit journalist and even worse book-writer, commands a high enough wage to live in a gated compound in the USA in addition to owning property over here. 

As for the legal/freedom of speech aspect, yeah, it's not great.  I think this is an outgrowth of libel tourism and similar issues than have been brought up over the years - the UK legal system is very geared towards suppressing reporting when enough money changes hands, it seems.  Or whenever the government issues a D-notice to the press, which allows them to suppress news on defence and security grounds (and has little Parliamentary oversight).

[Cain]

Depends.  Some are.  The well known, national ones tend to be.  Andrew Marr, who had a super-injunction taken out to prevent information that he had an affair and possibly fathered a child with his mistress (turned out he didn't, but thought he did) was certainly rich enough to afford it.

So how do you know this then, out of curiosity?

He revealed it.  Said he felt ashamed about it, and with the current talk about it in the news, not disclosing this was a conflict of interest.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Given the way that information is disseminated these days, things like prior restraint, super-injunctions, and D-notices are becoming increasingly ineffective. Suppressing information is very difficult as it is and it seems that this trend is only going to continue as more of the planet's inhabitants become more tech savvy.

It's pretty much technically impossible to effectively suppress information once it gets out.