London (Reuters) - Hosni Mubarak in the Egyptian has failed to stem protests by disabling the Internet. The Syria was unable to stop phone mobile video of bloody repression appearing on YouTube.
The United States fought to prevent the spread of cables Wikileaks and the efforts of the Chinese authorities have not quite stopped dissent online.
Now, a selection of British celebrities Palermo who hoped to court dear "superinjunctions" hide Affairs or indiscretions may be the latest victims of the rise of the Internet and social media.
No one knows quite how many of the actors, athletes, business and other have obtained these judgments in recent years to stop the publication of embarrassing or damaging allegations. Estimates range from a few dozen to up to 200.
Only available in the UK but worldwide, theoretically superinjunctions prohibiting media mention not only the details of the case and the identity of the persons concerned but even the existence of the injunction itself.
Breaching the order would someone in contempt of court, liable to an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison.
Integrate media largely organisations - if reluctantly, respected; but in recent weeks a string of identities and sometimes explicit detail fled anyway, largely via Twitter and the wider Internet.
The highest profile, Manchester United Ryan Giggs Football, was Monday finally led by the general public media after a member of Parliament used "parliamentary privilege" for him after tens of thousands of Twitter users had done the same.
"It is the most recent example of social media really let the cat in the bag," said Jonathan Wood, analyst of the global issues for Control Risks of Council based in London. "In a globalized world, control the information in this way gets much more difficult."
"Appoint private Ryan" proclaimed the front page of Daily Mirror Britain. While the details of his alleged relationship remain secret, the veteran player now suffers more the attention of the media should have the history simply launch.
UNSUSTAINABLE SITUATION
Critics have said that allowed effectively orders the rich and powerful to buy the silence of the media. Lawyers feel that a super injunction likely costs approximately 100,000 books. But supporters say they are still valid and of the application.
"Recent events did not away with requests for help protect illegal disclosure of private information,", said Magnus Boyd, a renowned partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck London - for the representation of eager customers of privacy against the newspapers of Britain.
"There is always a value injunctions in appropriate circumstances." (They) shall be granted in exceptional circumstances and only where the Court is satisfied that there is a just cause. ?
But the Prime Minister David Cameron and other senior politicians say a new "Privacy Act" is necessary rather than leaving the issue to the discretion of the courts and judges. He spoke of the current situation created the "untenable" situation by which media could not report on something everyone in the country.
A glimmer of hope that a new UK law could become a broader model European and international regulations, protection of individuals against slanderous charges, often false which could devastate families or businesses.
But others warn that it might still be ineffective. With the crossing Internet borders, Internet sites based abroad may particularly find their way around any national legislation. Wikileaks, for example, already moved locate its servers in countries as the more user-friendly as the Iceland.
It is significant, few of the celebrities identified to date apart from Giggs have much if any recognition name outside Great Britain.
Truly global as figures golfer Tiger Woods, his adulterous Affairs affixed to the media, or the IMF's former Chief Dominique Strauss Kahn would be more difficult to quell the media around the world chat across multiple jurisdictions.
An expert in public relations, estimated it could cost up to $100,000 per month in legal costs to keep a history of mainstream media simultaneously, for example, Great Britain, the United States and the France simultaneously - and even then a website based in another country could always run.
STRUGGLES OF NATIONAL LAW
"National law has much less meaning on the Internet, said wood from the Control Risks." Governments can - that China does - block individual Web sites, but it is difficult to stop leaks of information across. It is also difficult sites such as Twitter responsible for everything that is written on them. ?
Some celebrities are supposed to be to prosecute in the power of Twitter to identify those who broke the superinjunctions and the names of anonymous Twitter accounts. Some argue that the micro-blogging site should apply controls.
"Perhaps the real outlaws here are the platforms such as Twitter that control the flow of information without wanting to take the responsibility to moderate content," said Boyd to Carter-Ruck. "It should be possible to build in a sort of filter to limit the flow of illegal content."
But even the best filters have limits. In its strategy of what some analysts call "authoritarianism in network", China has blocked Twitter and aggressively moderated sites of Chinese language that offers a similar service.
Eager to stop discussion on the implications of the agitation of the Middle East to China, search for blocked authorities from words such as "Egypt" and "mubarak." But they had only mixed success, with some users using the alternative spellings or euphemisms.
Some simply chose designate Mubarak as "Mu-jintao" aggregation its name with that of the Chinese leader Hu Jintao - precisely the connection the authorities wanted to avoid made.
Authoritarian regimes are expected to increase the use of social networking sites to identify potential dissidents for arrest. Prestige journalists who violate superinjunctions are still subject to prison. But stop the broader conversation online may prove hard as stopping malicious word gossip in a Court of recreation office or school.
"The change landscape as we speak," said Kevin Craig, General Manager of the firm based in London, political Lobbying and Relations media (PLMR) "as it happens, it is fair to any social media of police... but that does not mean people should not have the right to privacy." Anyone who thinks that they are a simple answer to this just makes it. ?
(Edited by Ralph Boulton)
