<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Privacy injunction hearings: not &#039;super&#039; but anonymous</title>
	<atom:link href="/2011/04/14/privacy-injunction-hearings-not-super-but-anonymous/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://meejalaw.com/2011/04/14/privacy-injunction-hearings-not-super-but-anonymous/</link>
	<description>News, resources &#38; discussion for digital publishers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 08:29:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Turns out there weren’t that many super-injunctions after all</title>
		<link>https://meejalaw.com/2011/04/14/privacy-injunction-hearings-not-super-but-anonymous/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Turns out there weren’t that many super-injunctions after all]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 03:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://meejalaw.com/?p=820#comment-152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Super-injunction are court orders enforcing a person&#8217;s privacy in relation to a particular issue. What sets them apart from ordinary injunctions is that their very existence cannot be reported by the press. And until early 2010, there were justifiable concerns that a form of permanent secret justice was beginning to develop. However, that concern should be dispelled by the decision in the Terry case. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Super-injunction are court orders enforcing a person&#8217;s privacy in relation to a particular issue. What sets them apart from ordinary injunctions is that their very existence cannot be reported by the press. And until early 2010, there were justifiable concerns that a form of permanent secret justice was beginning to develop. However, that concern should be dispelled by the decision in the Terry case. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Opinion: &#8220;Gagging on Privacy&#8221; &#8211; Adam Wagner &#171; Inforrm&#039;s Blog</title>
		<link>https://meejalaw.com/2011/04/14/privacy-injunction-hearings-not-super-but-anonymous/#comment-151</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Opinion: &#8220;Gagging on Privacy&#8221; &#8211; Adam Wagner &#171; Inforrm&#039;s Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:21:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://meejalaw.com/?p=820#comment-151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] due to the way they are collated by the Ministry of Justice. Media law blogger Judith Townend agrees that more raw information is [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] due to the way they are collated by the Ministry of Justice. Media law blogger Judith Townend agrees that more raw information is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
