View source for Philosophy:Streisand effect

{{Pp-extended|small=yes}}{{Short description|Increased awareness of information caused by efforts to suppress it}}
{{Pp-move}}
[[File:Streisand Estate.jpg|300px|thumb|The original image of Barbra Streisand's cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, which she attempted to suppress in 2003]]

The '''Streisand effect''' is an [[Social:Unintended consequences|unintended consequence]] of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead backfires by increasing awareness of that information. It is named after American singer and actress Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress Kenneth Adelman's website publication of his photograph of her cliff-top residence in Malibu, California, taken to document California [[Earth:Coastal erosion|coastal erosion]], inadvertently drew far greater attention to the previously obscure photograph in 2003.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Streisand Effect |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-were-watching-streisand-effect-barbra |website=Merriam-Webster.com |publisher=Merriam Webster dictionary |access-date=March 25, 2019}}</ref><ref name="Byrne">{{cite web |url= https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/streisand-effect-barbra-streisand-invasion-of-privacy-lawsuit-new-memoir-130024264.html |title=Yahoo Celebrity {{mdash}} What is 'the Streisand effect'? Barbra Streisand addresses infamous invasion of privacy lawsuit in new memoir. |quote="When I first heard the term, I naively thought, Is that about the effect of my music?" she wrote in her book. "Little did I know." |first1=Suzy |last1=Byrne |publisher=Yahoo Entertainment |date=November 6, 2023 |via=[[Company:Yahoo!|Yahoo!]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=My Name Is Barbra |type=Hardcover |date=November 7, 2023 |first1=Barbra |last1=Streisand |publisher=Viking |isbn=978-0525429524}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling-tentative.pdf |title="slapp-ruling-tentative" |access-date=21 January 2024}}</ref>

Attempts to suppress information are often made through [[Social:Cease and desist|cease-and-desist letters]], but instead of being suppressed, the information sometimes receives extensive publicity, as well as the creation of media such as videos and spoof songs, which can be [[Mirror site|mirrored]] on the [[Internet]] or distributed on [[File sharing|file-sharing networks]].<ref name="London">{{Cite journal |last=Canton |first=David |url=http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=111404&x=articles&s=shopping |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070927014240/http://www.lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=111404&x=articles&s=shopping |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 27, 2007 |title=Today's Business Law: Attempt to suppress can backfire |journal=The London Free Press |date=November 5, 2005 |access-date=July 21, 2007 |quote=The 'Streisand effect' is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20872&hed=YouTube%E2%80%94Censored%3F |title=YouTube – Censored? Offending Paula Abdul clips are abruptly taken down. |last=Mugrabi |first=Sunshine |date=January 22, 2007 |work=Red Herring |access-date=July 21, 2007 |quote=Another [[Social:Unintended consequences|unintended consequence]] of this move could be that it extends the kerfuffle over Ms. Abdul's behavior rather than quelling it. Mr. Nguyen called this the 'Barbra Streisand effect', referring to that actress's insistence that paparazzi photos of her mansion not be used |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070218200850/http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20872&hed=YouTube%E2%80%94Censored%3F |archive-date=February 18, 2007 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In addition, seeking or obtaining an [[Social:Injunction|injunction]] to prohibit something from being published or to remove something that is already published can lead to increased [[Social:Publicity|publicity]] of the published work.

The Streisand effect is an example of [[Social:Reactance (psychology)|psychological reactance]], wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to acquire and spread it.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Burnett |first1=Dean |title=Why government censorship [in no way at all] carries greater risks than benefits |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/may/22/government-censorship-psychology-theresa-may |access-date=April 16, 2016 |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=May 22, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424061616/https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/may/22/government-censorship-psychology-theresa-may |archive-date=April 24, 2016}}</ref>

==History and etymology==
In 2003, American singer and actress Barbra Streisand sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million for violation of privacy.<ref name="Byrne"/><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Barbara Streisand v. Kenneth Adelman Et. Al. |vol= |reporter=Cal.Super. |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles |date=May 20, 2003 |url=https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2zd3hv14c/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/barbara-streisand-vs-kenneth-adelman-et-al/ |postscript=No. SC077257}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28562156 |title=The perils of the Streisand Effect |work=BBC News Magazine |publisher=BBC |date=July 31, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160113013559/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28562156 |archive-date=January 13, 2016}}</ref> The lawsuit sought to remove "Image 3850", an aerial photograph in which Streisand's mansion was visible, from the publicly available California Coastal Records Project of 12,000 California coastline photographs, documenting [[Earth:Coastal erosion|coastal erosion]] and intended to influence government policymakers, of which the photograph of her residence was an overlooked and inconsequential tidbit of information.<ref name=London/><ref name="soctech">{{cite book |first1=Josh |last1=Bernoff |first2=Charlene |last2=Li |title=Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies |publisher=Harvard Business School Press |location=Boston |year=2008 |page=[https://archive.org/details/groundswellwinni00lich/page/7 7] |isbn=978-1-4221-2500-7 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/groundswellwinni00lich/page/7}}</ref><ref name="tech dirt">{{cite news |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050105/0132239.shtml |title=Since When Is It Illegal to Just Mention a Trademark Online? |work=Techdirt |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121130130914/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050105/0132239.shtml |archive-date=November 30, 2012}}</ref><ref name="smoking">{{cite web |url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/barbra-sues-over-aerial-photos |title=Barbra Sues Over Aerial Photos |access-date=November 22, 2010 |date=May 30, 2003 |work=The Smoking Gun |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110417185401/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/barbra-sues-over-aerial-photos |archive-date=April 17, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407234728/http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |url-status=dead |title=California Coastal Records Project |archive-date=April 7, 2008 |website=californiacoastline.org}}</ref> The lawsuit was dismissed and Streisand was ordered to pay Adelman's $177,000 legal [[Finance:Attorney's fee|attorney fees]].<ref name="Byrne"/><ref>''Streisand v. Adelman, et al., in California Superior Court; Case SC077257''</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Adelman |first=Kenneth |title=Barbra Streisand Sues to Suppress Free Speech Protection for Widely Acclaimed Website |url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |publisher=California Coastal Records Project |date=May 13, 2007 |access-date=April 8, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407234728/http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html |archive-date=April 7, 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=Streisand's Lawsuit to Silence Coastal Website Dismissed |url=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Barbra-Streisand-Coastal3dec03.htm |publisher=Mindfully.org |date=December 3, 2003 |access-date=April 8, 2008 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090706034700/http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Barbra-Streisand-Coastal3dec03.htm |archive-date=July 6, 2009 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-28-me-barbra28-story.html|title=Judge Orders Streisand to Pay $177,000 for Photographer's Legal Fees|last=Weiss|first=Kenneth|newspaper={{wipe|Los Angeles Times}} |date=May 28, 2004|access-date=August 16, 2022}}</ref>

"Image 3850" had been downloaded only six times prior to Streisand's lawsuit, two of those being by Streisand's attorneys.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling-tentative.pdf |title=Barbara Streisand vs. Kenneth Adelman, Ruling on submitted matters, tentative decision and proposed statement of decision |access-date=September 24, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150824073334/http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/slapp-ruling-tentative.pdf |archive-date=August 24, 2015|page=6|quote=Image 3850 was downloaded six times, twice to the Internet address of counsel for plaintiff}} In addition, two prints of the picture were ordered—one by Streisand's counsel and one by Streisand's neighbor.</ref> Public awareness of the case led to more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the following month.<ref name=rogers>{{cite web |url=http://www.californiacoastline.org/news/sjmerc5.html |title=Photo of Streisand home becomes an Internet hit |access-date=June 15, 2007 |last=Rogers |first=Paul |date=June 24, 2003 |work=San Jose Mercury News, mirrored at californiacoastline.org |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130730212219/http://www.californiacoastline.org/news/sjmerc5.html |archive-date=July 30, 2013}}</ref>

Two years later, Mike Masnick of Techdirt named the effect after the Streisand incident when writing about Marco Beach Ocean Resort's takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of [[Engineering:Urinal|urinal]]s) over its use of the resort's name.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809195 |title=The Streisand Effect' Snags Effort to Hide Documents |work=All Things Considered|publisher=NPR |date=February 29, 2008 |first=Robert |last=Siegel |quote=The episode is the latest example of a phenomenon known as the 'Streisand Effect.' Robert Siegel talks with Mike Masnick, CEO of Techdirt Inc., who coined the term. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180306072519/https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809195 |archive-date=March 6, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Masnick">{{cite news |last1=Masnick |first1=Mike |title=For 10 Years Everyone's Been Using 'The Streisand Effect' Without Paying; Now I'm Going To Start Issuing Takedowns |url=https://www.techdirt.com/2015/01/08/10-years-everyones-been-using-streisand-effect-without-paying-now-im-going-to-start-issuing-takedowns/ |access-date=April 16, 2016 |work=Techdirt |date=January 8, 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220301170557/https://www.techdirt.com/2015/01/08/10-years-everyones-been-using-streisand-effect-without-paying-now-im-going-to-start-issuing-takedowns/ |archive-date=March 1, 2022}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=How long is it going to take before lawyers realize that the simple act of trying to repress something they don't like online is likely to make it so that something that most people would never, ever see (like a photo of a urinal in some random beach resort) is now seen by many more people? Let's call it the Streisand Effect.|author=Mike Masnick|title="Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online?"|source=''Techdirt'' (January 5, 2005)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.techdirt.com/2005/01/05/since-when-is-it-illegal-to-just-mention-a-trademark-online/|title=Since When Is It Illegal To Just Mention A Trademark Online? |date=January 5, 2005|last1=Masnick |first1=Mike}}</ref>}}

{{Anchor|politics}}

=== Equivalent saying in Chinese ===
The phenomenon is well-known in Chinese culture, expressed by the {{transliteration|zh|chengyu}} "wishing to cover, more conspicuous" ({{lang|zh|欲蓋彌彰}}, {{lang-zh|hp=Yù gài mí zhāng}}).<ref>{{cite news|title=史翠珊與潘朵拉效應 欲蓋彌彰愈蓋愈彰|date=August 8, 2020|language=zh|publisher=eDigest|accessdate=July 25, 2022|url=https://www.edigest.hk/%e6%8a%95%e8%b3%87/%e5%8f%b2%e7%bf%a0%e7%8f%8a-%e8%88%87-%e6%bd%98%e6%9c%b5%e6%8b%89%e6%95%88%e6%87%89-%e6%ac%b2%e8%93%8b%e5%bd%8c%e5%bd%b0%e6%84%88%e8%93%8b%e6%84%88%e5%bd%b0-173336/}}</ref> A similar expression appeared as early as the 4th century BC.<ref>{{cite book|title=Zuo Zhuan|chapter=Duke Zhao, Year 31|language=zh|orig-date=c. 360 BC}}</ref>

==Rebuttal by Barbra Streisand==

In her autobiography ''My Name is Barbra'' published in November 2023, Streisand gives her side of the incident. She says "My issue was never with the photo . . . it was only about the use of my name attached to the photo. I felt I was standing up for a principle, but in retrospect, it was a mistake. I also assumed that my lawyer had done exactly as I wished and simply asked to take my name off the photo." Streisand said that she had already experienced security problems with intruders.<ref name="book">{{cite book |last1=Streisand |first1=Barbra |title=My Name Is Barbra |date=2023 |publisher=Viking |location=US & UK |isbn=9781529136890 |pages=906–907 }}</ref>

==Examples==
===In politics and government===
<!-- Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources that actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and that give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question. Examples that don't will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation :) -->
[[File:Base militaire de Pierre-sur-Haute.jpg|thumb|right|When the French intelligence agency DGRI tried to delete Wikipedia's article about the military radio station of Pierre-sur-Haute, the article became the French Wikipedia's most-viewed page.]]<!-- Please don't add anymore examples here unless they are better than pre-existing ones here. Otherwise they belong in List of Streisand effect examples. -->The French intelligence agency DGRI's attempt to delete the French Wikipedia article about the military radio station of Pierre-sur-Haute<ref>Communiqué from the Wikimedia Foundation, April 6, 2013{{Circular reference|date=September 2015}}</ref> resulted in the restored article temporarily becoming the most-viewed page on the French Wikipedia.<ref>{{cite news |last=Geuss |first=Megan |work=[[Ars Technica]] |title=Wikipedia editor allegedly forced by French intelligence to delete "classified" entry |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/wikipedia-editor-allegedly-forced-by-french-intelligence-to-delete-classified-entry/ |access-date=April 6, 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20130408234303/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/wikipedia-editor-allegedly-forced-by-french-intelligence-to-delete-classified-entry/ |archive-date=April 8, 2013}}</ref>

In October 2020, the ''New York Post'' published [[Engineering:Hunter Biden laptop controversy|emails from a laptop]] owned by Hunter Biden, the son of then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, detailing an alleged corruption scheme.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Morris |first1=Emma-Jo |last2=Fonrouge |first2=Gabrielle |date=October 14, 2020 |title=Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad |url=https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ |access-date=October 20, 2020 |website=New York Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201014115516/https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/|archivedate=October 14, 2020}}</ref> After internal discussion that debated whether the story may have originated from Russian misinformation and propaganda, Twitter blocked the story from their platform and locked the accounts of those who shared a link to the article, including the ''New York Post''{{'s}} own Twitter account, and White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, among others.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/26/twitter-bans-ads-from-russia-today-and-sputnik-over-election-interference |date=October 26, 2017 |title=Twitter bans ads from RT and Sputnik over election interference |quote=Company announced decision following US intelligence community's conclusion that Russian media outlets sought to interfere with the US election|access-date=April 14, 2022|work={{wipe|The Guardian}}}}</ref> Researchers at [[Organization:Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] cited the increase of 5,500 shares every 15 minutes to about 10,000 shares shortly after Twitter censored the story, as evidence of the Streisand Effect nearly doubling the attention the story received.<ref>{{Cite magazine |title=Twitter's ban almost doubled attention for Biden misinformation |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/10/16/1010644/twitter-ban-hunter-biden-emails-backfires/ |last=Ohlheiser |first=Abby |date=October 16, 2020 |access-date=October 20, 2020 |magazine=MIT Technology Review}}</ref> Twitter removed the ban the following day.

===By businesses===
<!-- Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources that actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and that give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question. Examples that don't will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation. -->{{See also|AACS encryption key controversy}}
In April 2007, a group of companies that used [[Social:AACS encryption key controversy|Advanced Access Content System (AACS) encryption]] issued cease-and-desist letters demanding that the system's 128-bit (16-byte) numerical key (represented in [[Hexadecimal|hexadecimal]] as {{code|09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0}}) be removed from several high-profile websites, including [[Software:Digg|Digg]]. With the numerical key and some software, it was possible to decrypt the video content on [[HD DVD]]s. This led to the key's proliferation across other sites and chat rooms in various formats, with one commentator describing it as having become "the most famous number on the Internet".<ref name="ny_most_num">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/technology/03code.html |newspaper=The New York Times |quote="The ironic thing is, because they tried to quiet it down it's the most famous number on the Internet." |first=Brad |last=Stone |date=May 3, 2007 |title=In Web Uproar, Antipiracy Code Spreads Wildly |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211105021/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/technology/03code.html |archive-date=December 11, 2008}}</ref> Within a month, the key had been reprinted on over 280,000 pages, printed on T-shirts and tattoos, published as a book, and appeared on YouTube in a song played over 45,000 times.<ref name="greenberg">{{cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/05/10/streisand-digg-web-tech-cx_ag_0511streisand.html |title=The Streisand Effect |date=May 11, 2007 |quote=The phenomenon takes its name from Barbra Streisand, who made her own ill-fated attempt at reining in the Web in 2003. That's when environmental activist Kenneth Adelman posted aerial photos of Streisand's Malibu beach house on his web site as part of an environmental survey, and she responded by suing him for $50 million. Until the lawsuit, few people had spotted Streisand's house, Adelman says—but the lawsuit brought more than a million visitors to Adelman's Web site, he estimates. Streisand's case was dismissed, and Adelman's photo was picked up by the Associated Press and reprinted in newspapers around the world. |access-date=February 29, 2008 |first=Andy |last=Greenberg |work={{wipe|Forbes}} |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080307025538/http://www.forbes.com/home/technology/2007/05/10/streisand-digg-web-tech-cx_ag_0511streisand.html |archive-date=March 7, 2008}}</ref>

In September 2009, multi-national oil company Trafigura obtained a [[Social:Injunction#UK super-injunctions|super-injunction]] to prevent ''The Guardian'' newspaper from reporting on an internal Trafigura investigation into the [[Earth:2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump|2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump]] scandal. A super-injunction prevents reporting on even the existence of the injunction. Using [[Social:Parliamentary privilege|parliamentary privilege]], Labour MP Paul Farrelly referred to the super-injunction in a parliamentary question and on October 12, 2009, ''The Guardian'' reported that it had been gagged from reporting on the parliamentary question, in violation of the Bill of Rights 1689.<ref name="Guardian gagged">{{cite news |first=David |last=Leigh |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament |title=Guardian gagged from reporting parliament |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=October 12, 2009 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005045156/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament |archive-date=October 5, 2013}}</ref><ref name="Guardian-Bill of rights">{{cite news |first=David |last=Leigh |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-court-parliament-reporting-gag |title=Guardian seeks urgent court hearing over parliament reporting gag |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=October 13, 2009 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005145157/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-court-parliament-reporting-gag |archive-date=October 5, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Aditya Chakrabortty |title=Brain food: Internet censorship and the Barbra Streisand effect |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/brain-food-internet-censorship-barbra-streisand |date=October 19, 2009 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref> Blogger Richard Wilson correctly identified the blocked question as referring to the Trafigura waste dump scandal, after which ''The Spectator'' suggested the same. Not long after, Trafigura began trending on Twitter, helped along by [[Biography:Stephen Fry|Stephen Fry]]'s retweeting the story to his followers.<ref name="Stephen Fry spreads news">{{cite web |last=Jacobson |first=Seth |url=http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54667,business,twitter-claims-another-scalp-as-trafigura-backs-down |title=Twitter claims new scalp as Trafigura backs down |work=The First Post |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100828075707/http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54667,business,twitter-claims-another-scalp-as-trafigura-backs-down |archive-date=August 28, 2010}}</ref> Twitter users soon tracked down all details of the case, and by October 16, the super-injunction had been lifted and the report published.<ref name="Telegraph reports on Trafigura">{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html |title=Secret Trafigura report said 'likely cause' of illness was release of toxic gas from dumped waste |newspaper=The Telegraph |location=London |first1=Martin |last1=Beckford |first2=Holly |last2=Watt |date=October 16, 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170731174349/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html |archive-date=July 31, 2017}}</ref>

===By other organizations===
<!-- Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources that actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and that give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question. Examples that don't will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation. -->
In January 2008, the [[Organization:Church of Scientology|Church of Scientology]]'s attempts to get Internet websites to delete a video of Tom Cruise speaking about [[Religion:Scientology|Scientology]] resulted in the creation of the protest movement [[Social:Project Chanology|Project Chanology]].<ref name="guardian_streisand"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.complex.com/blogs/2009/07/24/the-streisand-effect-when-internet-censorship-backfires/ |title=The Streisand Effect: When Internet Censorship Backfires |work=Complex |date=July 24, 2009 |access-date=April 27, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100429232410/http://www.complex.com/blogs/2009/07/24/the-streisand-effect-when-internet-censorship-backfires/ |archive-date=April 29, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/miloyiannopoulos/8248311/What_is_The_Streisand_Effect/ |work=The Daily Telegraph |location=London |date=January 31, 2009 |access-date=March 31, 2010 |title=What is 'The Streisand Effect'? |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110608133028/http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/miloyiannopoulos/8248311/What_is_The_Streisand_Effect/ |archive-date=June 8, 2011}}</ref>

On December 5, 2008, the [[Organization:Internet Watch Foundation|Internet Watch Foundation]] (IWF) added the English Wikipedia article about the 1976 Scorpions album ''[[Social:Virgin Killer|Virgin Killer]]'' to a child pornography blacklist, considering the album's cover art "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18".<ref name="guardian_streisand">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/mar/20/streisand-effect-internet-law |work=The Guardian |location=London |title=The Streisand effect: Secrecy in the digital age |first=Charles |last=Arthur |date=March 20, 2009 |access-date=March 31, 2010 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906071208/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/mar/20/streisand-effect-internet-law |archive-date=September 6, 2013}}</ref> The article quickly became one of the most popular pages on the site,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ |title=Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover |date=December 7, 2008 |access-date=December 9, 2008 |first=Cade |last=Metz |work=The Register |url-status=live |archive-url=http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/20110608133030/https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/ |archive-date=June 8, 2011}}</ref> and the publicity surrounding the IWF action resulted in the image being spread across other sites.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html |title=Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist |last=Moses |first=Asher |date=December 8, 2008 |work=The Sydney Morning Herald |access-date=December 9, 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103174513/http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/wikipedia-added-to-child-pornography-blacklist/2008/12/08/1228584723764.html |archive-date=November 3, 2012}}</ref> The IWF was later reported on the BBC News website to have said "IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the Internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm |title=IWF backs down on Wiki censorship |date=December 9, 2008 |access-date=December 9, 2008 |work=BBC News |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211033923/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm |archive-date=December 11, 2008}}</ref> This effect was also noted by the IWF in its statement about the removal of the URL from the blacklist.<ref name=living>{{cite web |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/26/opinion/edmorozov.php |title=Living with the Streisand Effect |access-date=December 29, 2008 |date=December 26, 2008 |work=International Herald Tribune |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114100047/http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/26/opinion/edmorozov.php |archive-date=January 14, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |url=http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/251-iwf-statement-regarding-wikipedia-webpage |title=IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage |date=December 9, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101075354/http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/251-iwf-statement-regarding-wikipedia-webpage |archive-date=January 1, 2011 |access-date=September 24, 2013 |publisher=Internet Watch Foundation}}</ref>

===By individuals===
<!-- Please do not add examples unless accompanied by sources that actually refer to the Streisand effect by name and that give solid evidence that the attempt to censor increased the publicity of the item in question. Examples that don't will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation. -->
In May 2011, Premier League footballer Ryan Giggs sued Twitter after a user revealed that Giggs was the subject of an anonymous [[Social:Gag order|privacy injunction]] (informally referred to as a "super-injunction")<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/20/lord-neuberger-report-superinjunction-hysteria |title=Lord Neuberger's report cuts through the superinjunction hysteria |last=Townend |first=Judith |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=May 20, 2011 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131222093235/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/may/20/lord-neuberger-report-superinjunction-hysteria |archive-date=December 22, 2013}}</ref> that prevented the publication of details regarding an alleged affair with model and former ''Big Brother'' contestant Imogen Thomas. A blogger for the ''{{wipe|Forbes}}'' website observed that the British media, which were banned from breaking the terms of the injunction, had mocked the footballer for not understanding the effect.<ref>{{cite news |last=Hill |first=Kashmir |url=https://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/05/20/he-who-cannot-be-named-in-the-uk-sues-twitter-over-a-user-naming-him/ |title=He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (In The UK) Sues Twitter Over A User Naming Him |work=Forbes |date=September 30, 2009 |access-date=May 21, 2011 |quote=Apparently, though, CTB's lawyers have not heard of the "Streisand effect". |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110522074451/http://blogs.forbes.com/kashmirhill/2011/05/20/he-who-cannot-be-named-in-the-uk-sues-twitter-over-a-user-naming-him/ |archive-date=May 22, 2011}}</ref> Dan Sabbagh from ''The Guardian'' subsequently posted a graph detailing—without naming the player—the number of references to the player's name against time, showing a large spike following the news that the player was seeking legal action.<ref>{{cite news |title=Twitter and the mystery footballer |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/organgrinder/2011/may/20/twitter-superinjunctions |first=Dan |last=Sabbagh |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=May 20, 2011 |access-date=May 24, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141221182008/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/organgrinder/2011/may/20/twitter-superinjunctions |archive-date=December 21, 2014}}</ref>

The Streisand effect has been observed in relation to the [[Social:Right to be forgotten|right to be forgotten]], the right in some jurisdictions to have private information about a person removed from internet searches and other directories under some circumstances, as a [[Social:Lawsuit|litigant]] attempting to remove information from search engines risks the litigation itself being reported as valid, current news.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://recombu.com/digital/news/google-creates-streisand-effect-bbc-mail-guardian |title=Google's right to be forgotten creates Streisand effect |work=Recombu |date=July 3, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141208035842/http://recombu.com/digital/news/google-creates-streisand-effect-bbc-mail-guardian |archive-date=December 8, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bdlive.co.za/life/gadgets/2014/07/23/techno-file-exercising-right-to-be-forgotten-could-spark-streisand-effect |title=Techno File: Exercising 'right to be forgotten' could spark 'Streisand effect' |publisher=BDlive |date=July 23, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140725171521/http://www.bdlive.co.za/life/gadgets/2014/07/23/techno-file-exercising-right-to-be-forgotten-could-spark-streisand-effect |archive-date=July 25, 2014}}</ref>

==See also==
* {{Annotated link |Banned in Boston}}
* {{Annotated link |Blowback (intelligence)}}
* {{Annotated link |DSMA-Notice}} (popularly known as a "D notice")
* {{Annotated link |Gag order}}
* {{Annotated link |The History of Sexuality|''The History of Sexuality''}}
* {{Annotated link |Hydra effect}}
* {{Annotated link |List of eponymous laws}}
* {{Annotated link |Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson|''Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson''}}
* {{Annotated link |McLibel case}}
* {{Annotated link |Perverse incentive}} ("Cobra effect")
* {{Annotated link |Reactance (psychology)}}
* {{Annotated link |Red triangle (Channel 4)}}
* ''Royal Family'' (film)
* {{Annotated link |Strategic lawsuit against public participation|Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)}}
* {{Annotated link |Succès de scandale}}
* [[Social:Injunction#Super-injunctions|Super-injunctions]]&nbsp;— In England and Wales, injunctions whose existence and details may not be legally reported, in addition to facts or allegations which may not be disclosed

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28562156 "The perils of the Streisand effect"]. Parkinson, Justin. BBC News, July 31, 2014.

{{unintended consequences}}

[[Category:Adages]]
[[Category:Internet culture]]

{{Sourceattribution|Streisand effect}}