Jemima Khan is latest to deny injunction rumours

Civil rights campaigner Jemima Khan has become the latest celebrity to deny taking out a super-injunction. Yesterday she became the victim of rampant rumours on Twitter claiming there was a court order preventing the publication of intimate photographs of her and Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

Khan's name was just one of several posted by a Twitter user who has been seeking to unmask the identities of celebrities he or she thinks have taken out injunctions to protect aspects of their personal lives. Some of the names have been bandied about on the micro-blogging website for weeks.  

Within hours of the accusation being posted, Khan responded, tweeting: "OMG - rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of 'intimate' photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"

She added that she had received a "nice text" from Clarkson's wife Francie.

She later tweeted: "The proof that I haven't got a super injunction is that the papers have printed my name (and no one else's - for fear of being sued)."

Khan is the second celebrity in three days to have been forced to deny rumours she has attempted to suppress embarrassing information. On Friday, the BBC sports presenter Gabby Logan told the Daily Mail that rumours spread on Twitter that she had conducted an affair with former England football international Alan Shearer were "devastating and hurtful".

"I'm a happily married and faithful wife," she said. "It is devastating and hurtful that malicious lies can be circulated on the internet without control when people who genuinely do have something to hide can be protected by court rulings."

Logan believes super-injunctions are "potentially damaging for free speech" and "would appear to be a tool for the rich".

Another victim of internet gossip is the film star Ewan McGregor, who has been wrongly identified as the "world famous celebrity" who paid for sex with Helen Wood, the prostitute used by footballer Wayne Rooney.

The accusation against Khan has now been on Twitter for almost a day – with no sign of action being taken to remove it, leading some to ask whether injunctions are effective – and whether they can be justified when they cause innocent people to become the target of internet rumour.

One judge was mocked last month for giving a "married man working in the entertainment industry" - who is also named on Twitter - an injunction 'contra mundum' (literally 'against the world'). Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said: "I am surprised the judge limited himself to silencing the world. Why not the whole Solar System?" The recent activity on Twitter is a direct challenge to such far-reaching injunctions.

Louise Bagshawe, the Conservative MP who recently had to be censored by the BBC when she came close to identifying a Premier League footballer who has taken out an injunction during an episode of Have I Got News For You told the Daily Telegraph: "You cannot keep things secret in this day and age because of Twitter and other social networking websites, which are outside the British jurisdiction. One wonders if the celebrities who have taken out super-injunctions might regret it now as rather than one or two days of embarrassment they face a saga which goes on for months.

"It also devalues the use super-injunctions when they are necessary and proper, such as protecting the new identity of a child who has committed murder." ·