[super] Apparently there is a new concept of a "super injuction" in English tort law

[Ken Blake]

Never heard the word [super] being used this way before.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65729361
""When I chose to come out I did so entirely for my own wellbeing.
Nobody 'forced' me out. Neither I nor anyone else, to my knowledge, has
ever issued an injunction, super or otherwise, about my relationship with
this colleague, he was never moved on or sacked by or because of me."

There are five distinct meanings in the (Am)English dictionary, some of
which have subcategories, the closest that may fit perhaps being number 4.
:constituting a more inclusive category than that specified

Digging deeper, that first guess is likely wrong as it's more likely this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law
"In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that
prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the
reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all."

The etymology is apparently only half a dozen years old, described as...
"The term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the 2006 Ivory
Coast toxic waste dump controversy that had resulted in Trafigura obtaining
a controversial injunction."

Although the recent term is said in that article to be misused in media.
"The term super-injunction has sometimes been used imprecisely in the
media to refer to any anonymised privacy injunction preventing publication
of private information."

Which means there's a technical distinction between those injunction types.

See also the related "Streisand effect."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

This web page by a law firm in England describes the three types of
injunction:
https://www.griffin.law/super-injunction-can-get-one-2/

It also says:

Claimants need to think carefully about whether to invest significant
resources in obtaining and enforcing super injunctions or anonymised
inunctions. Although they can be effective, if there is a likelihood
of the story ending up in foreign press or on social media then their
value will be short lived as the English Courts can do little unless
the foreign publications have UK assets.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 28 May 2023 13:48:36 +0100, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> This web page by a law firm in England describes the three types of
> injunction:
> https://www.griffin.law/super-injunction-can-get-one-2/
>
> It also says:
>
> Claimants need to think carefully about whether to invest significant
> resources in obtaining and enforcing super injunctions or anonymised
> inunctions. Although they can be effective, if there is a likelihood
> of the story ending up in foreign press or on social media then their
> value will be short lived as the English Courts can do little unless
> the foreign publications have UK assets.

Every day I read likely scores of news articles where I favor the news from
around the world over local garbage about migrants crossing our borders.

When I ran into "super injunction", I wasn't sure why he had made that
distinction given it seemed to be a simple case of lying to his employers.

I guess he was warding off the claims that prior restraint existed, where
it's good to know your warning fits with the Streisand effect (is it
Streisand Effect or Streisand effect?) where it seems a "super injunction"
only exists (at least by that term) in the British Isles.

Looking up whether such a thing exists under a different name across the
pond isn't going to be easy to do because of the vanilla words used.

But I did find this BBC report titled "Why super-injunctions don't happen
in [the] US" where they say [the] US "bemoans the UK's privileged elite."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13338757

"While in the UK, the story has evolved into a debate about a 'two-track'
legal system - one for mainstream media and one for social media - in the
US that debate rarely happens, because all media can get away with a lot
more.

And injunctions? Forget it. Americans are bemused that famous people in the
UK are able to stop the publication of details of their private lives,
because it goes against one of their country's founding principles, free
speech."

The BBC article (which isn't consistent about its own use of "[the] US" by
the way) supposes that the nearest equivalent to the British use of "super
injunction" is called "prior restraint" in [the] US law courts.

[Mark Brader]

Ken Blake:

> But I did find this BBC report titled "Why super-injunctions don't happen
> in [the] US" where they say [the] US "bemoans the UK's privileged elite."
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13338757

...

> The BBC article (which isn't consistent about its own use of "[the] US" by

> the way)...

Wrong. "The US", noun. "US", adjective. The headline is not part of
the article and is written in headline language.
--
Mark Brader | And the customary practice seems to be "FIRST,
Toronto | let the cat out of the bag; THEN inform you
m...@vex.net | that there's a cat and a bag." --Daniel P.B. Smith

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 28 May 2023 21:45:02 +0000, Mark Brader wrote:

>> The BBC article (which isn't consistent about its own use of "[the] US" by
>> the way)...
>
> Wrong. "The US", noun. "US", adjective. The headline is not part of
> the article and is written in headline language.

Thank you for explaining the differences!

I didn't even know there was the concept of (Headline)English, so I
appreciate that you brought up that there exists a headline language
protocol (where there are specific grammar rules for writing headlines).
https://englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/8-grammar-rules-writing-newspaper-headlines/

1. Use present simple tense for past events
2. Leave out auxiliary verbs
3. Use infinitives for future events
4. *Leave out articles (a, an, the)*
5. Leave out "to be"
6. Leave out "to say"
7. Replace conjunctions with punctuation
8. Use figures for numbers

There seem to be other sets of grammar & social rules for headlines
which support your view that (headline)English doesn't use articles.
https://spcollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=254319&p=1695321

a. Use present tense and active verbs, but don't start with a verb
b. Use infinitive form of verb for future actions
c. *Do not use articles - a, an, the*
d. Do not use conjunctions like and - you can substitute a comma

All of which say what you said about removing articles in headline style.
https://pavilion.dinfos.edu/Checklist/Article/2200866/headline-writing-guidelines/

a. Eliminate unnecessary words (i.e., a, an, the)
b. Omit forms of the verb 'to be' (is, are, was, were)
c. Use numerals
d. Abbreviate days of the week and months
e. Use present tense verbs, aka 'historical present tense'
f. Use strong verbs but avoid commanding verbs
g. Follow a subject/verb-object structure
h. Only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized
i. Don't use a period at the end
j. Use single quotes to quote material
j. Use a comma as a substitute for "and"
l. Use specific details if they are available
m. Use only widely known acronyms and abbreviations
n. Only use names when they're prominent and use only notable nicknames

Hence, thanks for informing me there are grammatical rules for headlines.
Learning about the English language is what makes this group so wonderful.

Headline style aside, since I've striven to shirk the mainstream US media
for a more balanced world view, and given I open a few dozen news links at
a time, I can almost always tell when I'm reading a skewed (Indian)English
publications versus the more balanced (Br)English journalism simply by
expressions they use inside the article body itself.

In the case of the more balanced (Br)English publications, distinct words
like [strimmer], [super] and [beyond the pale] are used quite differently.

Certainly the use of capitalization for proper nouns seems different.

As is the use of [the] as in [the hospital] where (Br)English favors being
in [the hospital] almost as a "condition" in and of itself (and not as
being inside of a building), much as being [in jail] would be in the USA.