{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02287581699346405, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.046052631578948, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Super-Injunction, What’s Your Function?

In the United Kingdom, a super-injunction is an interim action that prevents those against whom it is issued and any third parties who have notice of the injunction – including members of the media – from communicating about the subject in question. The media are not allowed to even reference the fact that there is an injunction in place. Often, the proceedings are anonymised, meaning the identities of the applicant and respondent are unknown, with initials replacing names. Super-injunctions and anonymised orders create tension between freedom of the press and privacy and deviate from fundamental principles of open justice. This article examines the role of super-injunctions in English media law, the tension between individual privacy and the need for an open justice system, and the implications of social media sites such as Twitter in the super-injunction process.