Poll: Should celebs be allowed to use super-injunctions?

Does a Big Brother contestant have less right to privacy than a Premier League footballer? Should money really be able to buy silence? Should both parties be protected?

Just some of the many questions raised by a super-injunction granted to a high-profile footballer earlier this month, when the press learned of his extra-marital affair with Welsh model Imogen Thomas.

The Big Brother star has complained that she has been "thrown to the lions" while her ex-lover remains publicly unidentified.

Yesterday, BBC broadcaster Andrew Marr confirmed that he had sought a gagging order in 2008 to prevent media reports of his affair with another unnamed journalist. His decision to obtain the injunction has been criticised by peers including Ian Hislop, who challenged the court order and later branded it "pretty rank" because of Marr's role as an "active journalist".

However, some celebrities such as Girls Aloud star Kimberley Walsh have backed the use of super-injunctions, claiming that she did not agree that footballers in particular should be "named and shamed". She argued that their families deserve the privacy to deal with the situation.

What do you think? Should celebrities be able to protect themselves while other parties such as Imogen Thomas deal with the fallout themselves? Or should they too have to face the flack for their actions?

Vote in our poll below and let us know what you think.