Why no campaign against super-injunctions?

Rightly, Stephen Glover points today to the fact that "two more secret injunctions have been handed down... to shield the famous and wealthy." He is, like the rest of the British-based journalistic community, unable to tell the public their names even though he knows them. I agree that people should be able to prevent publication about their private lives if they can convince a judge that there is no justifiable public interest. The details of the claims should also remain secret (of course). But the fact of a person taking legal action should not be concealed from the public. I wonder why more newspapers are not kicking up a great fuss about these super-injunctions this time around. For example, why is The Sun - which loves to hold aloft the banner of press freedom - not campaigning against the gag that prevents us knowing the identity of a television star who has prevented his ex-wife publishing an account of their relationship? Source: The Independent