Pressure is mounting on the celebrity threesome couple, known as PJS and YMA, to ditch a court injunction banning them from being named over an extramarital affair, after a Scottish newspaper reported their identities.
Newspapers in England are furious they cannot name the world-famous married couple, while the US press has, meaning American readers can learn all about the case. An Australian website is now the latest to report the names.
Their names have also been reported on Twitter and other social media sites, as well as a UK political blog.
The injunction, which has no legal force in Scotland, forbids papers in England and Wales from naming the pair, something that drove papers to complain bitterly this week, with The Daily Mail declaring 'the law is an ass!' on its front page.
The star, identified in court as PSJ, is said to have had a threesome with another couple. He won the right to keep it secret because of his and his spouse's, known as YMA, children’s right to privacy.
He initially lost his case at the High Court but went to the Court of Appeal.
The terms of the injunction are so strict that The Huffington Post UK cannot even name the Scottish paper or a US magazine that previously published full details of the case.
The Telegraph reported the Scottish paper's publication by saying the case had "descended further into farce".
The paper quoted Tory MP Philip Davies as saying: "Someone in the northern parts of England who is banned from knowing this information could walk to Scotland and read it in the newspapers there - it's an absolute mockery."
The Scottish newspaper has the story on its front page.
The naming of the pair by a paper so close to home will increase the pressure to ditch the injunction, as the press, aggravated by previous high-profile privacy cases, show no signs of giving up writing about it.
A popular political blog has also revealed the identities. The website mocked the court ruling by printing an image of the couple with black slits over their eyes, despite the fact their identities were obvious from the picture.
The editor of the political blog has now been threatened with jail. On Tuesday, the publication said that it had been contacted by the celebrity’s lawyers, Carter Ruck, threatening to jail the editor for Contempt of Court.
The court of Appeal held PSJ's family's right to privacy outweighed the media's right to free expression.
The Daily Mail printed a version of an article that its US website had been able to publish, with all the redactions it was forced to make by the injunction.
Former Lib Dem MP John Hemming told The Telegraph: "It's absurd trying to hold back the flow of information in the digital age by using a court order that can only go as far as Hadrian's Wall ... It undermines public debate in England and Wales."
In 2011, Hemming allowed papers to name Ryan Giggs as the footballer behind a 'super injunction' - one whose existence cannot even be reported - trying to prevent news of his affair with Imogen Thomas becoming public.
The then-MP named Giggs in parliament, by which point his identity was already an open secret on social media and in the press abroad.
The footballer gave up all right to anonymity less than ten months later.
In 2011, David Cameron said injunctions were "unsustainable" in the modern media age.
He said: "I think the government, Parliament, has got to take some time out, have a proper look at this, have a think about what we can do, but I'm not sure there is going to be a simple answer."
5 celebrities whose attempts to gag the press with super-injunctions backfired
He was initially referred to in reports as "a married TV star" when the injunction was enforced, but Clarkson later revealed himself to be the presenter in question.
He later said: "Injunctions don't work... it's pointless."
The 'Top Gear' star told the Daily Mail: “One, most importantly, injunctions don’t work.
"You take out an injunction against somebody or some organisation and immediately news of that injunction and the people involved and the story behind the injunction is in a legal-free world on Twitter and the internet. It’s pointless."
The injunction was heavily criticised and just a few days later was lifted by a judge, who decided that freedom of speech should take precedence over privacy.
But later that year Twitter users began naming him, a Scottish paper published a poorly anonymised photo of him in connection with the story and Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name the man himself.
The footballer gave up all rights to anonymity less than ten months later, in February 2012.
The BBC presenter had been criticised by 'Private Eye' editor Ian Hislop, who said that Marr, as a journalist himself, had been a "touch hypocritical".
Hislop said at the time: "As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist."
Marr said he was "embarrassed" about the gagging order and told the BBC: "I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists."
The married former Manchester United centre-back was seeking substantial damages for "misuse of private information".
In court, the judge, Mr Justice Nicol, smacked down the claim, saying: "Overall, in my judgement, the balancing exercise favours the defendant's right of freedom of expression over the claimant's right of privacy."
He continued: "At one level it was a 'kiss and tell' story. Even less attractively, it was a 'kiss and paid for telling' story, but stories may be in the public interest even if the reasons behind the informant providing the information are less than noble."