So a court issued an injunction suppressing reporting of any details
of the objectionable material allegedly found on the former deputy top
cop’s work machine. But the injunction also forbade any mention of its
own existence to be published.
Thankfully, that “super” part of the injunction has now been retracted
on appeal.
<
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360694239/former-top-cop-granted-gagging-order-preventing-publication-objectionable-material-allegations>
We have seen this kind of thing (suppressing the very mention of the
existence of the suppression order) happen in the UK. It didn’t seem
to serve any useful purpose there; why was it done here?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)