It was forbidden for a British newspaper to print a big story # MeToo. Here is what he did instead.

For eight months, British Daily Telegraph journalists have been working on an explosive #MeToo story about a well-known businessman, accused of sexual harassment and racial abuse.

This week, one of the top judges in England and Wales said the newspaper could not reveal the name of the alleged perpetrator nor the companies he was working for, at least for now.

In granting the temporary injunction, Judge Sir Terence Etherton ruled that the businessman was protected because at least five of his alleged victims had signed confidentiality agreements and had received "substantial" payments ". Publishing the allegations would be a violation of these agreements, the judge wrote. According to the judge, the alleged perpetrator must have the opportunity to show why his anonymity must be protected.

"There is a real prospect that publication by the Telegraph will cause immediate, substantial and possibly irreversible harm to all Claimants," Etherton wrote in an advisory.

The Telegraph argued that the decision was unfair because the newspaper had not reached agreement with the businessman in question. His lawyers argued that there was a "clear public interest" to publish the findings, "especially to alert those who might apply to work for him". According to the Telegraph, the businessman has spent more than $ 600,000 in fees for seven lawyers to fight the publication of the play.

Wednesday, the Telegraph made the front page of the newspaper sure l & # 39; history. "The British #MeToo scandal that can not be revealed", headlined the title.

"The accusations against the businessman, who can not be identified, will not fail to rekindle the #MeToo movement against the mistreatment of women, minorities and others by powerful employers, "writes the paper.

Critics say that non-disclosure agreements are often used to silence critics and hide patterns of bad behavior.

British Prime Minister, Theresa May, said she wanted to pass a law limiting the use of such types of agreements. On Tuesday, Maria Miller, chair of the Women and Equality Committee in the House of Commons, described the use of black orders as "gag". DNAs should not be used "when there are charges of sexual misconduct and broader intimidation," Miller said.