Looks Like Someone Knows What is Up

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

cudar

The Fly
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
72
Location
Madison, WI.
I can't tell for sure from the article if this article ever made it to the newsstands in the one paper that tried to publish it. Any of our UK friends ever read this tabloid? Here in the US tabloids are crap, are they the same in the UK?

Paper in Legal Clash With U2

Press Gazette (U.K.), January 14, 2005



The Sunday World is due to face U2's lawyers next week to explain why it published details about a seriously ill relative of a band member.

The rock group injuncted the paper after its first edition to stop it repeating details in subsequent editions last weekend.

A court hearing next Monday will be the first time the Republic of Ireland's journalists' exemption from prosecution under the country's Data Protection Act 2003 will be challenged.

And it could even lead to the implementation of a statutory code of conduct for journalists in the Republic of Ireland.

The rock group's lawyers took action after the Dublin-based tabloid identified the relative and a condition they suffer from.

The story was not followed up in the Irish papers the following Monday after newsdesks were notified of the injunction granted against the Sunday World in the early hours of Sunday morning.

It is not known if the paper intends to contest the injunction -- which effectively forbids it from again naming the relative or discussing their illness.

Despite knowing about the story, London-based titles -- including The Sun, Daily Mail and News of the World -- declined to publish it.

However, the Dublin-based Irish Daily Star reported aspects of the story last Friday. But they did not name the relative or the nature of their illness.


Paper in Legal Clash With U2
 
Yeah read this too. U2 eastlink has a lot information concerning this. Well I hoped it was all fabricated but if it is what it is, my prayers are with the band.
 
yea it was last sundays paper, the front cover had a picture of edge n his wife and daughter on an article on the front page saying what the craic was. none of the other papers in ireland or the UK covered it.
 
I'm not going to lock this but I just want to stress that since the family and the band have not made any official statements about these rumors that they obviously do not want to discuss it so we need to respect their privacy on this matter.
 
dsmith2904 said:
I'm not going to lock this but I just want to stress that since the family and the band have not made any official statements about these rumors that they obviously do not want to discuss it so we need to respect their privacy on this matter.

Thank you for this... :rolleyes:

Exactly how are we NOT respecting their privacy? Are we there in the hospital rooms spying? Are we hounding their homes rummaging through trash? Saying that is horribly cliche, redundant and condescending.

Someone posting a news article stating that U2 imposed an injunction against a newspaper is hardly an invasion of privacy. It's news. And the only bit of information provided was that an injunction was imposed.

Instead of warning us about how "private" this is, I think some mods need to relax and not be so sensitive about this whole issue. Seems that whenever anyone posts anything on this topic, the mods are all over it.

What was posted is newsworthy. And this topic shouldn't be locked simply because someone posted that article. As I wrote, there is no invation of privacy by posting said article. Furthermore, there is no speculation here - just posting something in the news. I find it insulting that someone should even suggest this thread be closed or that we be "reminded" that this is a private matter.
 
doctorwho said:


Thank you for this... :rolleyes:

Exactly how are we NOT respecting their privacy? Are we there in the hospital rooms spying? Are we hounding their homes rummaging through trash? Saying that is horribly cliche, redundant and condescending.

Someone posting a news article stating that U2 imposed an injunction against a newspaper is hardly an invasion of privacy. It's news. And the only bit of information provided was that an injunction was imposed.

Instead of warning us about how "private" this is, I think some mods need to relax and not be so sensitive about this whole issue. Seems that whenever anyone posts anything on this topic, the mods are all over it.

What was posted is newsworthy. And this topic shouldn't be locked simply because someone posted that article. As I wrote, there is no invation of privacy by posting said article. Furthermore, there is no speculation here - just posting something in the news. I find it insulting that someone should even suggest this thread be closed or that we be "reminded" that this is a private matter.

I said I wouldn't lock it because another person in this thread suggested it.

As far as the privacy matter, other posts in other threads have talked about contacting the band and the family with wishes, cards, etc. My intention in posting that we need to respect the family's privacy is that there is nothing wrong with this story being posted and people saying they with the best for the family on the board but anything beyond that would be invasive, especially considering no official statement has been made.

I'm sorry that didn't come out clear enough before.
 
Posting stuff like this just invites alot of hearsay and conjecture.

Personally, I don't consider it newsworthy, either. The band clearly want to keep such matters out of the public domain and quite rightly so, because its none of our business.
 
H said:
Posting stuff like this just invites alot of hearsay and conjecture.

Personally, I don't consider it newsworthy, either. The band clearly want to keep such matters out of the public domain and quite rightly so, because its none of our business.


Your personal opinions of what is or isn't newsworthy is totally irrelevant and useless to this discussion.

Additionally, this story is in the public domain. It's been in the press, published in the newspapers and posted on other sites. In other words, this is a *real* U2 news item. If anything, it should have been posted in the News forum. There is no speculation here - merely the mention of U2 imposing an injunction. Surely you don't find the news of imposing an injuction so deeply personal and private.

But if you do, then please address the following: on the front page of this website, we have an article from yet another nameless "source" stating that the reasons for the delay of the tour announcement were indeed due to routing and family illness.

Now THAT type of article leads to wild speculation. What were the routing issues? Who was ill? How serious is/was the illness? Which arenas gave problems? Has the person recovered? I can go on and on with questions and subsequent speculation.

My point is that I am astounded that anyone would consider this real news story about an injunction so private that they recommend this thread be closed.

And I am also distressed that we were "reminded" by a mod of how private this overall topic is, while the front page of this very website features a "news" article full of speculation from unlisted sources.

I fully agree that there's a right to privacy. However, I am against censorship and telling anyone to close a thread about an injunction is definitely censorship. You are projecting a lot of your own biases and feelings into a story that doesn't deserve it. If you wish to argue about all things "private" - go to the front page of this website and read the "news".
 
Last edited:
:up: I totally agree. That "news" item should not be in the news section. The story about the injunction should be, as it really is news. And surely that's something we can be allowed to talk about.
 
Hearsay and conjecture? It sounds as if it is right if U2 is trying to force an injunction. here in the states their is a new Right of Privacy thing that all patients get now when they go to the doctor/hospital. Does the UK have one? The article does not state where they got the info from. No one can control if a staff member at a hospital wants to leak the information. So should a news organization print something that they have found out about through a non illegal way? They (the news organization) didn't do anything illegal. Yes, U2 and it's members have a right to a certain amount of privacy, but they are superstars and have to expect to lose some privacy......be that right or wrong....I don't know just being a devils advocate here. I know I am in the minority here so flame away if need be.....
 
Alright. Fair enough.

As its of little interest to me, I just won't bother to read those friends which discuss personal issues surrounding the band.

I'm only here for the music, baby.
 
doctorwho said:



In other words, this is a *real* U2 news item. If anything, it should have been posted in the News forum. There is no speculation here - merely the mention of U2 imposing an injunction. Surely you don't find the news of imposing an injuction so deeply personal and private.

But if you do, then please address the following: on the front page of this website, we have an article from yet another nameless "source" stating that the reasons for the delay of the tour announcement were indeed due to routing and family illness.

Now THAT type of article leads to wild speculation. What were the routing issues? Who was ill? How serious is/was the illness? Which arenas gave problems? Has the person recovered? I can go on and on with questions and subsequent speculation.

My point is that I am astounded that anyone would consider this real news story about an injunction so private that they recommend this thread be closed.

And I am also distressed that we were "reminded" by a mod of how private this overall topic is, while the front page of this very website features a "news" article full of speculation from unlisted sources.

I fully agree that there's a right to privacy. However, I am against censorship and telling anyone to close a thread about an injunction is definitely censorship. You are projecting a lot of your own biases and feelings into a story that doesn't deserve it. If you wish to argue about all things "private" - go to the front page of this website and read the "news".

FYI, I just posted in the EYKIW forum regarding both the nature of the Press Gazette (see cudar's post) and the legal implications of U2's lawyers issuing this injunction under the Data Protection Act (rather than as part of a defamation suit). It's in the thread called "The Edge, Sian, and Leukemia" (none of which are discussed in my post, I promise!--it's all straightforward legal commentary).
 
I'd like to remind everyone that we have the editorial position to decide what stories we want published or not in the news section.... and for what reasons we choose, we do not have to explain, debate, or otherwise justify them. Just because we choose not to run one story over another does not mean we are setting up a specific set of rules of what gets posted and what doesnt.

As far as the 'illness' goes.... it is not within anyone's right to demand facts, an explanation, comment from the band, or family, management, etc. A tour announcement will be coming soon, I suggest you all sit tight and take it as it comes. The band's life or that of their families privacy is not ours for the plundering.

Thanks for understanding,

Joel
 
Is this rag, the Sunday World or Voice or whatever, the same one that was sued by Bono in 1991 for publishing details about the sex and due date etc of Eve, months before she was born? That was details about Bono's then-unborn child that had no business being in the public domain. the paper was rightfully sued by the band, for info that was just speculation at the time, but the info also turned out later to be accurate. However, of course, that didn't make it right.

The scandal rag later tried to make nicey-nice with Bono in 2000 when his laptop was stolen, and they were aggressive with contacting him with the first info leading to where it was. Turns out they did this in an effort to win from Bono a promise for better relations in the future.

No go then, and no go now, it seems. And rightly so.

I wonder if tragedy has ever struck any of these sickos who raid hospitals, bedrooms, tap phones, etc etc and make people's lives hell in pursuit of a buck (or euro, as it were) and if they keep their jobs then. I wonder how many of them have the herart to keep up their ruination of other peoples' lives while thier own is going through the same thing.

You also have to wonder why more celbs don'y sue to keep stuff like this out of the rags. This is debatable..is it necessary for thr world to know of someone's affair, for example? No. But if your private leife is being interfered with, you have a right to sue.

Rags have attempted to spread false info about the band in the past too. For example, the Sun ran a "story" in 2001 accusing Edge of rowdy behavior towards a fan that was totally hogwash. Edge got the paper to back off and apologize. I think the rags are resentful that we have the unique case of such a big celebrity, and therfore such a rich potential of gossip, has no available fodder, and (gasp!) live "normal" lives? Just b/c you'rer a celebrity, are you supoposed to behave like a buffoon? It's just the unique circumstance of a celebrity not getting carried away by thier money and fame. It almost never happens. Just about the only other celeb right now like that is Ah-nold and Peter Jackson.

Maybe U2 is in the unique position to get such people to apologize and retract their stories and even get laws enacted b/c of their position as "semi-royalty" in Ireland. But their spotless reputation over the yrs may have alot to do with it too.

Oh, and also, my 300th post, I think!:wink:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom