Parliament, the judiciary and the media are on a collision course after Ryan Giggs was named as the married footballer at the centre of a controversial privacy case even though judges refused to lift the gagging order.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name Giggs as the Premier League player who took out an injunction over his relationship with reality TV star Imogen Thomas.
But even after Prime Minister David Cameron said that he, "like everybody else", knew the player's name, and Commons Speaker John Bercow confirmed reports of the proceedings would be protected by privilege, the High Court rejected two bids by the Sun's lawyers to lift the gagging order.
Speaking in the Commons, Mr Hemming said: "With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all."
Mr Bercow immediately took the MP to task over his comments, telling him that "occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose".
Earlier Mr Cameron told ITV1's Daybreak that banning newspapers from naming such stars while the information was widely available was both "unsustainable" and "unfair".
"What I've said in the past is the danger is that judgments are effectively writing a new law, which is what Parliament is meant to do," he said.
He has written to the chairman of the Commons Justice Committee, Sir Alan Beith, and the chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, John Whittingdale, asking them to convene a joint committee of both houses to consider the issues of privacy and the use of injunctions. It is hoped it will report by the autumn.
The Sun newspaper challenged the order twice on Monday, saying "it is time for the courts to do the right thing and end a situation where readers of some newspapers but not others are allowed to know the worst-kept secret in the country".
But, rejecting the newspaper's latest attempt to lift the anonymity order, Mr Justice Tugendhat said it was important to remember the law of privacy was not concerned solely with secret information, but also with intrusion and harassment. The name "has been repeated thousands of times on the internet, and News Group Newspapers now want to join in", the judge said.