Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, admitted that bloggers and users of social network sites such as Twitter would not necessarily be covered by court orders, even though some simply “peddle lies”.
But he rejected claims that the situation made injunctions futile because the internet had "by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers", which "people trust more”.
I’m afraid my “noble” lord, that you are living in the past. Newspapers across the board are experiencing lower sales year on year, whilst the social networking sites are increasing their volume of traffic. Even my humble blog has experienced an increase in traffic by seventeen times in one year. This year if I keep up enough quality blogging (Note to self: Don’t write shite), I would expect to double last years increase. Don’t forget mine is not an overtly political blog, I just occasionally enter the political world as others write about it better than me.
My personal take on morality is if you are caught red-handed breaking laws, offending public decency, cheating on your spouse, then you deserve to by held to account. Just because you have vast financial resources at your disposal does not give you the right to more privacy than me.
Are we not supposed to be equal under the law?