News International can spit-shine my arse. posted by Richard Seymour

Via Galloway's new website, No more injunction, no more legal threats:

A High Court judge has refused to continue a ban on MP George Galloway publishing two photographs of undercover investigative journalist Mazher Mahmood.

Mr Justice Mitting, who granted the temporary injunction on Tuesday, said that Mr Mahmood's claim would be more likely than not to fail at a full trial.

And some Mazher splendour via Guido Fawkes:




Update: It's worth remarking on why this is an important legal precedent. First of all, the obvious: our side won against the Murdoch empire. Secondly, their attempted defense was defeated on every front. They tried to say that Mahzer could face physical threats, and that he should be protected on that basis - at that point, pots and kettles range out in the court room. This is a newspaper that has hounded people to their deaths, not least when they published a picture of an alleged 'paedophile', which resulted in a man in Manchester being kicked to death by a mob. The judge was satisfied that the legal proceedings were concerned with the "protection of his earnings capability and publication of his investigative journalism and his utility to his employers in that respect", not with his protection or survival. That plea was rejected. In this argument, they were hiding behind legal rulings over Jon Venables and Maxine Carr. The NotW lawyer even cited the case of Naomi Campbell. That this could not stick is an important legal precedent.

The next tack was to say that the pictures were not taken for public consumption, and why should they be made public. The photo of Mr Mahmood in the 'fake sheikh' outfit, passed to Galloway by another victim of his stings, was supposedly such a picture. Again, a murmur or two of disbelief. The judge's precise words were: "I am surprised to see this argument coming from your corner". That too was rejected. They tried to say there was a copyright issue with Mr Mahood's passport photograph. He hadn't even taken the picture himself, so that was rejected. At any rate, it was pointed out that the picture had previously appeared in the Observer, with no legal action. The News of the World lawyer said, in a moment of delicious self-satire: "The fact that there has been a degree of publication does not destroy the value of the information or the privacy of it".

Other newspapers and media are angry, because the News of the World of all papers was actually trying to curtail the freedom of the press. I know for a fact that some folks are very interested in Zak Newland's e-mail to yours truly. This has happened because George Galloway decided to give the News of the World a taste of their own medicine, and their stunningly stupid response has revealed the hollowness of their appeals to freedom of the press.

So, anyway, where's my March for Free Expression?