Monday, May 26, 2008

Temporary injunction on this blog and my opinion about it

As you will maybe notice I have taken some blog entries completely offline and edited reference to a particulary entity out of other blog entries. This has happend because I have learned that the temporary injuction placed on the blog and me in the case CS (OS) 218/2008 under process in Delhi High Court, also orders me to remove any indications in past blog entries which indicate any nexus between this particulary entity and spamming.

Further information about the injuction (order) can be found here:

I definitely don't agree with the temporary injunction (an opinion I'm entitled to have due to the Freedom of Speech given to me by §77 of the Danish constitution), but of course I accept it in respect of the Delhi High Court.

What I as a common man don't understand, is that the temporary injuction was made ex-parte (not because I chose not to be represented but because I was not noticed about the hearing). I fully understand why temporary injunctions made ex-parte and without notice can be necessary in certain cases, f.x. if we are talking a case of childabuse, then of course it's important to be able to remove the child from the abuser as quickly as possible and also without prior notice, in case the court evaluates that harm can be done to the child if the abuser knows that the temporary injunction is up for hearing.

But in this particulary case the reason for a temporary injunction must be in order to prevent further damages and financial loss to Plaintiff, and the order mentions that it is a problem that potential customers can search in google with Plaintiffs name and then end up on this blog, and that this can put off large number of customers. I have looked at my Google Analytics reports and can see that from July 2, 2007 and until this date I have received only 215 visits referenced from search engines where name of the Plaintiff have been used in the searchwords, that is not even 1 visit per day, which really doesn't fit well with the "large number of customers" statement. Based on that a common man like me find it unlogical that such a speedy hearing, without time to at least just hear my point of view regarding the allegations, was necessary, but again it's just my opinion and I respect the choice made by Delhi High Court.

The temporary injunction also seems to be based on the fact that I should have continued blogging after being told about the suit. It's correct that an earlier suit No. 148/2007 was filed back in July 2007 by Plaintiff but I was not served the summon and shown the allegations in the suit before the end of January 2008. So the reason I continued blogging was simply because I'm not clairvoyant. But of course with a ex-parte hearing I was never given the possibility to prove that it was missing clairvoyant capabilities and not disrespect for the lawsuit that made me continue blogging.

Then there is the actual order given:
"In view of these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to ex parte ad interim orders. The defendants and in particular the defendant No.1 shall desist from posting any blogs or writing any e-mails to the plaintiff or any other person, which contain any defamatory matter or which indicate any nexus between the plaintiff and spamming."

What I have now learned more than 3 months after the temporary injunction was served and after Plaintiff have filed a petition because of my contempt for the court (disobeying the temporary injunction), is that "desists from posting any blogs" actully does also mean "remove postings / references to plaintiff in existing postings". I think it's understandable that a common man like me who don't know the language used in lawsuits can misunderstand the order, and I, especially when the temporary injunction is then given ex-parte, don't understand why it was not chosen to clearly state what was expected of me in the temporary injuction.

But again all of the above is just my personal opinion and is of course a result of my poor knowledge of legal processes and the language used in such, and I therefore also as mentioned before fully accept the temporary orders given to me by Delhi High Court.

“Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away.”
- Elvis Presley