A tabloid newspaper complains that the courts have now granted two injunctions to protect the private lives of footballers.
On the face of it, these injunctions raise "free speech" issues: they are injunctions granted by the courts to prevent the mainstream media publishing something it otherwise would want to publish.
However, this view may be misconceived.
Two hallmarks of a free and civilised society are free debate on public issues and protection of privacy for individuals.
My own commitment to libel reform has nothing to do with enabling the mainstream media greater freedom to intrude into private lives; instead, it is to free public debates - about health, science, safety, the conduct of corporations and of police officers and other officials in the discharge of their duties - from the deadening effect of the threats of libel actions.
But the non-exposure of the sex lives of footballers, soap stars and other celebrities does not represent any significant free speech issue.
For me, the libel reform campaign is not about promoting the interests of the mainstream media.
That may be an effect of the campaign in certain situations, but it is not an objective.
Libel reform is instead about providing individuals with information on matters of public interest.
And however the concept of public interest may be defined, it is difficult to see mere intrusions into private life as being any component of it.
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.