The end of super-injunctions?

It looks to me as though social networking sites will sound the death knell for super-injunctions.  The rationale behind such legal moves is questionable anyway - does Article 10 recognising press freedom outweigh Article 8 which guarantees an individual's right ro privacy?  Eventually the courts would have made a decisive ruling, but the sheer number of challenges on Twittter, Facebook, and sundry blogs is such that the judges will, in future, be wasting their time granting injunctions - they don't buy privacy, merely an increasingly short amount of time.  It's one thing to pursue an individual for contempt of a court ruling, but can you pursue thousands of individuals?  It's Spartacus all over again

I won't repeat the names of those that have been granted super-injunctions - I don't yet feel brave enough to do that, and to be frank, the details of their peccadiloes doesn't much interest me - but anyone who wants to know simply needs 5 minutes and an internet connection.  Having now heard the names I wonder what all of the fuss is about.  If someone is in the public eye are they really daft enough to believe that martital infidelity or using prostitutes can be kept secret?  Anyone who does believe that deserves to be 'outed' on the grounds of rank stupudity!

In any event, the law has never been set in stone, and it has always changed with the passing of time and changes in social mores - what we're seeing now are changes driven by the digital age, and there are sure to be more yet to come.