Comments on: Espionage is a serious business: freedom of speech and restitutionary remedies

By: Skepticlawyer » The Stig’s identity and gain based damages

Skepticlawyer » The Stig’s identity and gain based damages — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:51:59 +0000

[...] of his profits, what would the implications be for freedom of speech? (This is a question which my co-blogger Eoin O’Dell thinks should be asked more frequently in these cases). In the UK freedom of speech is protected [...]

By: cearta.ie » Espionage is a serious business – redux

cearta.ie » Espionage is a serious business – redux — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:02:44 +0000

[...] to my earlier post about last week’s Current Legal Problem lecture [...]

By: Tweets that mention cearta.ie » Espionage is a serious business: freedom of speech and restitutionary remedies -- Topsy.com

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:51:45 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bosca, Eoin O'Dell. Eoin O'Dell said: http://tinyurl.com/ydgrgau My new blogpost: Espionage is a serious business: freedom of speech and restitutionary remedies [...]

By: Eoin

Eoin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:43:12 +0000

Thanks for the good wishes. As for your comment:

Given the ineffectual nature of pre-publication injunctions (as made very clear by the Spycather saga) is the state just falling back on restitution to try to stop leaks?

Exactly!

By: Oisín

Oisín — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:10:44 +0000

I had to follow the link to discover that you were giving the paper! Best of luck!

I’m a bit unclear as to why a restitutionary remedy would even be on the cards in these sorts of cases. I can see why, say, a celebrity who had been the subject of invasive photographs may want restitution: Their image is their primary product and the tabloid has expropriated that image without permission to make a profit.

However, in these cases the state hasn’t really suffered any pecuniary loss. The loss, to the extent that one has been suffered, is an increased risk to national security; however this would be almost impossible to quantify or, even if it could be quantified, bears no relation to the amount of profit made on the books sales.

The only motivation I can really see here on the part of the state is a vindictive attempt to punish the author, and presumably, to deter other individuals who may be in the same position. Given the ineffectual nature of pre-publication injunctions (as made very clear by the Spycather saga) is the state just falling back on restitution to try to stop leaks?