Talk:ETK

Super-injunction
A super-injunction has been granted in England and Wales preventing the identity of someone known only as ETK from being revealed (source). Since people will be turning to Wikipedia to learn more, and these initials are now an effective alias of the person in question, this should be a disambiguation page, pointing to the Commune of the Working People of Estonia, where it currently redirects, and to the person with the super-injunction. As per "Wikipedia is not censored", Wikipedia's main servers are based in Florida and are under the jurisdiction of the Floridian and US federal courts (with their admirable First Amendment). I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the super-injunction binds Wikipedia. There is therefore no valid reason to keep the relevant information, which is obviously in the public domain judging by a cursory inspection of the web, out of this article. Same goes for all the other poisonous super-injunctions currently in force. Terminal emulator (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * . Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the linked article and am wondering what your point is. If it's to say that Wikipedia cannot include suppressed information where an injunction is issued contra mundum, I'd suggest that such measures are wishful thinking on the part of the courts and needn't trouble Wikpedia. How are they going to enforce it against someone in a distant part of the world who is outside of their jurisdiction, will not be visiting their jurisdiction, and whose own country has laws protecting freedom of expression that trump the orders of a foreign court? If a Bahraini court attempted to bar reporting of its calling in of Saudi military assistance to crush pro-democracy demonstrations, would you advocate that Wikipedia should avoid mentioning it, or would you regard the order as irrelevant? Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you: your response was sufficiently terse that I can't be sure what it is from the linked article you want to draw my attention to and what implications you believe it has for the problem I raised above. Terminal emulator (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is unenforceable and that the judges have abrogated too much power to themselves in the usual way. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  21:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, I think you're probably right. Terminal emulator (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Readers interested in a general discussion of this kind of thing should see Administrators'_noticeboard (that will probably disappear into the archive soon enough, but it's the thread beginning 18:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC) for those who want to find it). Terminal emulator (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)