I DON’T care about what Ryan Giggs does or doesn’t get up to off the pitch. Nor am I someone who normally gets troubled by the Human Rights Act. (Why demand fewer human rights?) But I am concerned that the rise of superinjunctions, born of such laws, is a threat to freedom of speech.

I may not give two hoots about the alleged sexual incontinence of this TV celebrity or that sportsman but these injunctions follow a path that can also protect confidential information even when it is in the public interest that it should not be hushed.

Investigative journalism matters. And time and again we have seen the value of whistleblowers making information public because they felt morally compelled to so. Superinjunctions can gag information from such sources coming out.

Remember, too, the injunction a firm obtained to stop all reporting on a Parliamentary Question a couple of years ago? And the way the wealthy can use libel laws to prevent investigative reporting? Our free society is already limited by many laws. If a Privacy Law was required it should have been brought in by Parliament after debating the issue, not simply delivered by the courts.

And I’m not even touching on the absurdity of papers, radio and TV being gagged by injunctions while the same material circulates on Twitter.

Meanwhile, I don’t know anything about any alleged affair between Ryan Giggs and BB star Imogen Thomas but I notice a fake movie poster’s circulating on the web purporting to promote a fictional film called “Saving Ryan’s Privacy”.

With Mrs Giggs now clearly knowing about the allegations, if there were any truth in them, I would have thought a more appropriate film title would be Saving Ryan’s Privates.