The truth will out
The Telegraph claims to have solid evidence of a history of sexual harassment and racial abuse by a well-known businessman. But said businessman has gone to the courts to block publication, based on the idea that the story relies on information from people breaching non-disclosure agreements.
The courts have sided with the businessman, and thus the Telegraph cannot tell its story.
This would never happen in the US, which gives far more freedom to the press to publish substantiated information. If Harvey Weinstein was British, maybe we’d never have found out about his behaviour. If Donald Trump was British, maybe Stormy Daniels wouldn’t have been able to come forward.
Laws weighted strongly in favour of protecting the rich from being exposed by the media are no longer fit for purpose. The public won’t tolerate them and the information will always find a way to work around them.
In some cases, laws restricting the media are a good thing. For example, the recent trial of a child abuse ring was subject to reporting restrictions to make sure the case didn’t collapse. Far-right figurehead Stephen Yaxley-Lennon could have threatened the case
when he began live-streaming details outside the court. As a result, he was arrested and his fanbase grew through his perceived martyrdom, but the alternative – justice not being served to the victims of those abusers – would have been worse.
But in today’s case, the law just isn’t fit for an age where information doesn’t just want to be free
, it can’t help itself – it’ll break free somehow.