GREAT GAGGING ORDER REVOLT; Thousands of fans chant his name at match; Scottish paper prints his picture as 30,000 unmask him on Twitter; Does ANYONE still not know who they're all talking about?(News; Front Page)

Byline: Steve Doughty Social Affairs Correspondent

A FOOTBALLER'S court battle to keep his alleged affair secret has provoked one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in modern times.

The face of the star alleged to have taken out a privacy injunction was yesterday published by a Scots newspaper. Football fans mockingly chanted his name at a match with a worldwide audience. And he was mentioned more than 30,000 times on Twitter, helping to ensure that anyone still unaware of his identity can discover it with a few clicks of a mouse.

The dramatic backlash took its cue from MPs and peers who have spoken against injunctions.

It left judges facing an overwhelming task if they try to maintain the gagging order while preserving any shreds of respect for the courts and their privacy laws.

One MP suggested that only a minority of people have not now heard a name for the Premier League footballer, who was granted a privacy injunction in April which forbade publication of his name or allegations that he had a six-month affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas.

Internet speculation on his identity began within a week, was fuelled by an MP who blurted out his name during the recording of a television programme, and was helped along by Miss Thomas, who has complained frequently that she can be named and her reputation has been traduced.

The married footballer responded last week by trying to sue San Francisco-based Twitter to get the names of people who have identified him on the website. The result was a flood of internet speculation, with a name appearing on Twitter at the rate at one point of 160 times a minute.

A BBC journalist fell into the trap of speaking the first syllable of his name on Radio Four's flagship Today programme on Saturday morning, a lapse which encouraged more internet speculation.

The Glasgow-based Sunday Herald yesterday published a picture of the player on its front page, clearly identifiable despite a bar placed over his eyes.

It named him inside the paper and added that his action against Twitter 'raises questions over the future of free speech on social media sites'.

The paper has a circulation of just over 30,000, which means it is likely to be read by between 75,000 and 100,000 people.

The effect of English privacy injunctions in Scotland has been a legal grey area. Scotland has a separate legal system and in the landmark Spycatcher case in 1986, Scottish newspapers ignored English judges and published material from the banned book by a former MI5 agent.

But Scottish newspapers circulate in England and their editors have been careful until now to stick by the letter of privacy injunctions.

The alleged footballer's name and a sexual allegation was chanted by his club's supporters at a Premier League match yesterday. And he was mentioned in connection with the privacy case in the online reference site Wikipedia.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has campaigned against privacy injunctions, said: 'This is an oppressive and sinister farce.' Mr Hemming, who first identified disgraced banker Sir Fred Goodwin in connection with a super-injunction in the Commons, said: 'The judges are trying to reverse the tide of civil disobedience with draconian attempts to suppress the truth.

'But this is now the biggest wave of civil disobedience anyone can remember. There are at least 30,000 people defying the judges on the internet.' He added: 'People are finding that the more you try to suppress something on the internet, the more it is published. Attempts to silence the internet are much more in the interest of the lawyers than the footballers.'

The open defiance of the privacy laws, developed by judges on the back of Labour's Human Rights Act, has mushroomed to unprecedented levels thanks to the internet.

Last week Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, backed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, threatened to restrict reporting of Parliament in the attempt to shore up the effectiveness of secrecy injunctions.

The judges are to stage talks with Commons Speaker John Bercow and Lords Speaker Baroness Hayman to try to stop MPs and peers using Parliamentary privilege to name those who have been given injunctions.

Judges have also been told that in future privacy injunctions should ban anyone from gossiping about names involved, and newspapers should pass on the names of all journalists in the know to the lawyers of celebrities with injunctions.

Yesterday Tory MP Douglas Carswell said the law is 'an ass'. He added: 'Mr Bercow should remind the judges that the Commons is elected - and it is their Lordships' appetite for self-aggrandisement that has left them looking asinine.'