Superinjunctions still suck

It's kinda worrying these days when even the Daily Mail is championing free speech, but here we are. The main argument for superinjunctions, especially in the Ryan Giggs case, is that it's "not in the public interest". This is the type of snobbery we have come to expect from the so called "liberal elite" (ironic as they're not liberal, and they're not elite), who look down their noses at the millions of people who read The Sun etc. The idea that we should scrutinize every story and determine whether the public have a "right to know" about it is something that would happen in communist China, not in the UK, the birthplace of the enlightenment. If that were to happen, The Sun would just be printed on a sheet of A4, with the weather, a crossword and a page 3 girl. I understand the "right to privacy", but in my view (and the view of the Irish courts as well, which are also bound by the ECHR), injunctions can only occur when somebody has hacked your phone, email, bank accounts etc. Only when the law has been broken then should you have to justify "public interest". Of course defending the right to publish kiss-and-tell stories about footballers won't get many people riled up, but when we have cases like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391918/New-gagging-order-row-erupts-Court-hear-sensitive-sex-case-secret.html, Fred the Shred raping the taxpayers and having an affair at the same time, Trafigura, and Gordon Ramsay firing two people from his company, then it's obvious the law is an ass.
  Also good on Lib Dem MP John Hemming for naming Ryan Giggs. He named him not because of the kiss-and-tell story, but because he was trying to sue people on Twitter for mentioning him (which is in the public interest), who might not even know the injunction exists. Also Giles Coren is under legal action for saying Gareth Barry has cheated on his wife, but the courts would not be allowed to name Coren, because it would break Barry's injunction. Hence we have the farcical situation where we wouldn't know who was being prosecuted, and nor would we know what he was prosecuted for. This is not open justice, and hence this is the real reason why injunctions suck.