The ‘Famous Man’ case shows why court orders still matter in a world full of online speculation

Stephen McDermott

THE ONLY THING worse than being talked about is not being talked about, unless of course you’re the celebrity who I can only call “Famous Man”.

The anonymous star with the dull epithet has made headlines after seeking an injunction against two British media organisations that want to report allegations about his behaviour towards young women.

Lawyers for the outlets say he is alleged to have used his status to contact young women and engage, or seek to engage, in “inappropriate and exploitative sexual activities”.

“Famous Man” denies these allegations, and the court did not decide whether they were true.

The judge granted him permission to appeal, and a separate order still protects his identity.

The reporting restriction covers social media posts too, but the internet is very good at turning the absence of a name into a guessing game – few things bring the internet together like rampant speculation and gossip.

That’s the irony of the Streisand effect: trying to keep something out of the headlines can make people more curious about it.

I’ve watched as the references to him have moved so far beyond guessing who he is that it’s now seen as a source of humour while offline discussions are still putting their trousers on.

There’s been an element of divilment to the online speculation about who “Famous Man” is, but there’s also a clear public-interest case in his identity being public.

I agree with the judge’s decision to reject his application for a permanent injunction.

Responsibly investigated allegations about a supposed abuse of power should be capable of being reported, subject to fairness and the law.

A properly reported account would give readers something to assess, and would set out what’s alleged, explain what evidence supports it and give the person at the centre of it a chance to respond.

In this case, the man’s lawyers argued against media publication of his name because they believed it would put his life at risk.

The judge accepted that publication would substantially increase that risk, but concluded that psychiatric services were responsible for protecting him and that the injunction sought was not justified.

The claims about “Famous Man” and his behaviour towards young women are serious, particularly because his fame is alleged to be part of the claims against him, and naming him could encourage potential witnesses to come forward.

Identification could also allow scrutiny of what, if anything, employers, agents, broadcasters and other organisations knew about the alleged conduct, and how they responded.

Advertisement

But the episode has also highlighted how poorly laws and regulations rooted in an offline world fit the realities of how information spreads online.

The result is two parallel information spaces, with traditional media organisations bound by far higher standards than those that prevail on social media.

That leaves me in an uncomfortable position: I want this information to be made public, but I don’t want an internet where anything can be said about anyone without consequence.

Admittedly, I have skin in the game as a journalist, but I believe in the higher standards and regulations that news organisations are held to.

The solution should not be to lower the bar for everyone because it feels impossible to rein in millions of people on X.

Social media companies should be expected to take more responsibility for the material they host and amplify, just as they are with child sex abuse images or misinformation.

It is hard to accept that some of the richest companies in the world can benefit from harmful material while treating the consequences as someone else’s problem.

But deciding what that responsibility should look like – and who should decide what comes down – is much less straightforward.

The complicated part is that a name circulating in social media posts does not necessarily carry the same weight as an investigation published by a news organisation.

I agree that the reporting should be allowed. But I can also see why a court would take the suicide risk seriously – and why an injunction might still limit the reach of a story, even if people are discussing it online.

An injunction might prompt strangers to share your name online, but it can still prevent it being read on the evening news – in reports that would then be shared online anyway.

But the other real-world issue is trying to make a court’s decision not to name a person stick online.

Even if social media companies could be made to enforce injunctions across different countries, how would we police those decisions?

One wonders whether a system that encourages platforms to remove anything that might breach a court order could also silence legitimate discussions of other matters.

There have been plenty of reports of platforms limiting the reach of certain content, from pro-Palestinian posts about the war in Gaza to discussions about abortion access, while X has also been accused of boosting Elon Musk’s own posts.

The allegations against “Famous Man” should be capable of being reported, and it would be much better to read a properly investigated account than try to piece one together from online speculation.

In the meantime, there’s a practical question about how much a court order can do to limit the spread of speculation online.

I want platforms to answer for what they amplify, but I’m still less sure how to make that happen without giving them even more discretion over what the rest of us get to read.