Attempts to silence a blogger who published the identities of a celebrity couple at the centre of a UK press injunction appear to have backfired, as newspapers in Canada and Sweden published details of the story.
The blogger said he had been fielding calls from the European press after publishing a letter sent by law firm Carter-Ruck threatening him with jail for publishing the names of the couple on a site accessible in the UK.
The injunction was taken out to stop the Sun from reporting details of a threesome one of the married pair allegedly had with another couple. The injunction was upheld by the court of appeal, citing both the potential impact on the couple’s two young children, and the fact their statements on their marriage were not contradicted by the celebrity’s behaviour as reasons for granting the injunction.
Referring to a phenomenon named after Barbra Streisand’s attempts to suppress photos of her home in Malibu, California, the blogger said the injunction was only serving to amplify the story, and he had no fears about being prosecuted because he was not based in the UK.
“It’s a massive Streisand effect. Now I am fielding calls from European tabloids,” he said. “I told [Carter-Ruck] to take it where the sun doesn’t shine. There’s no bricks and mortar in the UK, there’s no printing press in the UK, there’s no server in the UK.”
The Sun on Sunday, which was planning to publish the original story before being served with the injunction, is challenging the ruling, with a hearing due in the court of appeal on Friday.
Details of the story had already been published by a US newspaper last week, and in a Scottish newspaper on Monday, but UK readers were not able to access the story online.
The couple have also been named on social media by people in the UK, but the chance of prosecution remains remote unless the couple decide to pursue individuals.
A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office told the Guardian: “Anyone who breaches an injunction through comments posted online or otherwise may have contempt of court proceedings brought against them.
“Although the attorney general will consider any representations that are made to him, the onus for bringing proceedings for contempt will usually lie with the party who sought the injunction in the first place.”
