As the Injunctions absurdity drags on, and last week's controversy about rape relativity dies away, much to Ken Clarke's relief, it must be remembered that the two issues are inextricably linked.
The press isn't interested in freedom of speech, only in money. And mainly in the money to be made from perpetuating degrading stereotypes of women, debasing sexuality and emotion, and feeding the manufactured addiction to Celebrity, all of which ultimately combine to cause real assaults and rapes in the real world. To drag the 'Human Rights' of the press into this debate is a rape of Freedom of Speech, not championing it. Blazing hypocrisy, not the Sword of Truth. If injunctions have the effect of destroying 'Celebrity Culture', or even just making it less profitable, they will have done a great service. The depths of the celebrity disease can be seen by one of the first Tweets to come to hand on the footballer in question. Apparently his injunction is a betrayal of his adoring public, which a corrupt legal system allows:
'Because he has a right to trick you into thinking he's a good guy.'Who says he isn't? What is this? 1850? The fact is that he did what the Twitterer wanted to but couldn't, and so deserves toasting. This would be blazing hypocrisy if it wasn't quite so pathetic and disgusting.
The private lives of footballers are not in the Public Interest, and not even very interesting to the public, they are commodities to be bought and sold. And at present the tabloids are furious because Twitter is able to give this information away, and know that their days are numbered if this crucial source of profit is denied them and they have to revert to proper journalism.
The secret plans and backroom dealings of corporations and politicians are not as profitable a commodity as celebrity pillowtalk. But even if they were, the media can hardly be expected to attack its fellow corporations with the same gusto it does a footballer or variety artiste. That would not go down well at boardroom level.