Bring on the salacious details, cry out the public. After all, we've been trained to see gossip as a commercially viable transaction with a variety of positive outcomes.
The feeling of elitism of knowing the details of one affair to another is apparently unrivalled as another Tweeter launches titbits of social currency into the world wide web. The value is measured by his Klout, his audience reach and the rapid succession of followers.
But quickly behind the gasping public come the huffing politicians and puffling judges, incandescent with rage that their wonderful legal system could be flouted by that loathesome word, technology.
But somewhere in all of this, the true message of the freedom of speech has become lost.
There is no detail in the I paper today about the content of the latest breaches, but one hopes the intention in publishing the information was to reveal substance of public interest, rather than another round of dull, albeit tantalising, gossip on footballers.
Interestingly. Wikileaks sees fit to protect their interest in the release of private atrocities, condeming the injunction-breakers and calling for courts to 'flex their muscles'.
The constitutional crisis between parliamentarian and judge will not be aided by high profile leakers such as Mark Stephens, lawyer to Assange, or Guido Faulks taking sides in an allegorical battle over who can't keep it in their trousers.
But public interest ought to be the priority of all decisions on governing the information within and revealed outside of superinjunctions. A utilitarian approach to liberty and democracy.
And whether or not Imogen Thomas tried to blackmail a married footballer cannot be considered in the bracket.
Hemmings MP was still right to breach this in the name of ability to scrutinise - and bring the argument to the fore. But let's allow the Houses to have this battle now, without too much information about overpaid z-list's carnal exploits please.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device