Weeks after the PJS furore, a US website has named a Premier League manager and player accused of adultery, despite an injunction banning their identification in England and Wales.
Blocking software means UK readers will not be able to access the online story, which has bypassed gagging orders imposed by British courts.
The player is said to have won his injunction back in 2011 after convincing the court that his identification would have a "devastating effect" on his marriage, reports the Daily Telegraph. Meanwhile, the manager was able to block two stories of his alleged misdemeanours from reaching the pages of the English press.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Two other sports stars who have sought injunctions were also named.
It comes after the Supreme Court decided that The Sun could not reveal the identity of a well-known public figure, known only as PJS, who had an extra-marital threesome.
PJS was named in publications around the world, including in Scotland and on the internet, but the senior judges ruled that there was no public interest in "kiss and tell stories".
Last week, a separate privacy battle also emerged involving a public figure and the tabloid press, which is set to be examined by the Court of Appeal.
The "well-known" public figure was sued for unfair dismissal by a former hairdresser.
Two judges have ruled that News Group Newspapers, publishers of The Sun and The Sun on Sunday, should not be prevented from revealing the identities of those involved in the hairdresser case following employment tribunal hearings.
But the celebrity – referred to as RA – is to ask appeal judges to reconsider. The injunction barring the publication of names remains pending a Court of Appeal verdict.
Who is PJS? New celebrity injunction row emerges
26 May
A US magazine that named PJS, the celebrity who took out an injunction to cover-up an extra-marital threesome, has named another star trying to gag the press.
The "world-famous singer" was granted anonymity last year after being accused of sexually harassing his hairdresser during an employment tribunal, which was later settled out of court, says the Daily Telegraph.
The injunction was overturned, but the star, referred to as RA, has been given the go-ahead to take his case to the Court of Appeal, according to the Judicial Office, which means he cannot be named in England and Wales.
The US magazine, which also cannot be named, says it "refuses to be silenced" and is publishing RA's name this week.
"While millions of people around the world will be able to read about the allegations, UK publications can't publish the full details," says the Metro.
The new report comes less than a week after the Supreme Court upheld the ban on publications in England and Wales from naming PJS.
In what the Telegraph describes as a "landmark ruling that threatens to open the gates to a flood of gagging writs for the rich and famous", judges said readers in the UK had no right to know about the sex lives of celebrities.
PJS: Twitter warns users not to name celebrity
20 May
Twitter has issued a warning to users involved in naming the mystery celebrity who won an injunction to cover up an extra-marital threesome.
An email from Twitter's legal team was sent to users who had identified the married star, who can only be referred to PJS in England and Wales.
The partner, known only as YMA, cannot be named either, although both celebrities have been widely identified across social media and in the foreign press.
The warning came hours after yesterday's Supreme Court decision to uphold the privacy injunction in a case that tested freedom of the press and privacy laws in the digital age.
The social media giant did not "explicitly" ask users to delete the tweets, but it "hints that there could be consequences for not doing so," says The Guardian, which has seen the email.
The email reads: "The complainant requests that the following tweet, allegedly in violation of local law in the UK, be removed immediately from your account. Please confirm whether you will voluntarily comply with the request."
It indicates a "concerted effort" by the social media giant to get the tweets removed in the wake of the ruling, says the newspaper.
The Sun on Sunday, which has been seeking to publish the story since January, has argued that the injunction is essentially pointless because the celebrities involved have been so widely named.
But senior judges yesterday ruled that the injunction still held and there is no public interest in "kiss and tell" stories or "criticisms of private sexual conduct".
However, some legal experts warn that the ruling has created "a de-facto privacy law in the UK by definitively placing the privacy of a celebrity above the public's right to know," says the Daily Telegraph.
Who is PJS? Supreme Court delivers long-awaited ruling
19 May
The Supreme Court has ruled that publications in England and Wales cannot name a celebrity who had an extra-marital threesome.
The married star, known only as PJS, secured a privacy injunction to protect his identity after the Sun on Sunday newspaper attempted to print the story in January.
Although the Court of Appeal said the ban should be lifted last month, PJS has now successfully appealed against this decision, with senior judges ruling that there is no public interest in "kiss and tell stories".
The identities of PJS and his partner, known as YMA in England and Wales, have been revealed in publications across the world, including in Scotland, and on social media. But lawyers for the celebrity couple said that identifying them in the English press would be devastating for their children.
Delivering today's 39-page ruling, Lord Mance said: "There is no public interest (however much it may be of interest to some members of the public) in publishing kiss-and-tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well-known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them.
"It is different if the story has some bearing on the performance of a public office or the correction of a misleading public impression cultivated by the person involved.
"But ... that does not apply here."
The "facts" of the case were outlined in the Court of Appeal ruling last month: Lord Justice Jackson said PJS had met someone, referred to only as AB, around eight years ago, although there was a dispute about whether they had met through a mutual friend or on Facebook.
PJS and AB had "occasional sexual encounters" starting in 2009, according to the ruling.
"AB already had a partner, CD. In a text message exchange on 15 December 2011, the claimant asked if CD was 'up for a three-way'. AB said that CD was. Accordingly, the three met for a three-way sexual encounter which they duly carried out," it said. "After that encounter, the sexual relationship between the claimant and AB came to an end, but they remained friends."
AB and CB subsequently approached the editor of The Sun On Sunday and told him about their sexual encounters with PJS, said Lord Justice Jackson.
After the newspaper's lawyers contacted PJS's representatives in January to inform them that it planned to publish the story, PJS launched legal action as he said the story would be an invasion of his privacy. />
Courts could name celebrity as early as this week
16 May
The Supreme Court is due to deliver its ruling on whether publications in England and Wales can name a celebrity who had an extra-marital threesome.
The married star, known only as PJS, secured a privacy injunction to protect his identity after the Sun on Sunday newspaper attempted to print the story in January.
The identities of PJS and his partner, known as YMA in England and Wales, have been revealed in publications across the world, including in Scotland, and on social media.
"The case has escalated into a public battle over the issue of whether or not orders banning publication can, or should, be sustained in an era when websites outside UK courts' jurisdiction can be read from Britain", says The Guardian.
The outcome will therefore have "far-reaching consequences for all future privacy cases", adds the newspaper.
The Court of Appeal overturned the injunction last month, but PJS took the case to the Supreme Court, which has been considering its response for the past four weeks.
Lawyers for the celebrity couple say that identifying them in the English press would be devastating for their children.
However, the Sun on Sunday has argued that the information is in the public interest and that the injunction is essentially pointless because they have been so widely named.
The ruling will be broadcast live on the Supreme Court's website.
Who is PJS? US magazine vows to expose more British celebrities
09 May
The US magazine that revealed the identity of "PJS", the entertainer involved in an extra-marital threesome, has vowed to continue exposing British celebrities who seek privacy injunctions to gag the press.
The editor of the magazine, which also named a British actor who is alleged to have paid £195 to sleep with former sex worker Helen Wood, has branded the injunction system "absurd".
Neither the magazine nor its editor can be named in England and Wales in connection with the two stories. Both PJS and the actor have been widely named on social media.
The editor said his publication had "never shied away from publishing or tackling very serious issues and we will continue to pursue stories in Britain".
He added: "We believe our readers have the right to know about the professional and personal lives of these types of celebrities and we are not going to shy away from that.
"The notion that a celebrity can seek an injunction to prohibit material from being published in traditional material when it is available in new media is ridiculous."
Asked if he was planning to name any other people with a privacy injunction, he replied: "Watch this space."
The Sun is currently waiting to hear if it can print the name of PJS, as the Supreme Court continues to deliberate the case.
"More than 15 celebrities who won gagging orders in Britain now face having their secrets exposed," says the Daily Telegraph. "Lawyers said the world had woken up to the 'farce' of the British injunction, which has helped dozens of well-known names gag the press."
The secret list is said to include a "world-famous sportsman" who stopped the Sun from revealing an alleged affair with a female celebrity and a married football club manager, also accused of having an affair.
Fallout: one of the 'most faithful – and best – video game adaptations'
'Test of faith for Trump Media's investors'
Will Iran attack hinder support for Ukraine?
Judges allowed to use ChatGPT to write legal rulings
The pros and cons of streaming trials online
The legal battle to keep Archie Battersbee’s life support on
Texas’s abortion law: the Republicans get their way, at last
Changing legal gender: what’s new and how does it work?
America’s bloodiest state votes to ban the death penalty
FBI accused of ‘fake’ background check on Donald Trump Supreme Court nominee
Family of Malcolm X claims letter proves FBI and NYPD involved in his murder
