Freedom of the Press Versus Right to Privacy

Privacy has become a big issue in contemporary jurisprudence. The right wing to seclusion is enshrined in the United Nations answer of Human Rights, and guaranteed by clause 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But Article 8 is balanced by Article 10, which guarantees free ex printing pression of opinion. So what right has priority when they interlocking? Under what circumstances, for example, is it right to curtail press freedom in array to protect the right to privacy, or vice versa?The same balance is be sought between the right of citizens to data privacy and government demands for vex to personal information to fight crime, terrorism, and so on. Freedom of speech is a fundamental democratic liberty. It is a required protection against abuses of power and sieve-ups of erroneous belief by public officials. It was never more effectually displayed than in the Watergate investigation, which brought obliterate Richard Nixon in 1974. But one can have as well as l ots press freedom.Over the years, the tabloid press has become increasingly intrusive, claiming the right not just to offend corruption and incompetence in eminent places, but to titillate readers with scandalous revelations about the private lives of the famous. What started off as entertaining gossip about royalty and film stars has burgeoned into a immense assault on privacy, with newspapers claiming that any attempt to keep them out of the sleeping room is an assault on free speech. The issue has just been tested in Britains High Court.In March, Britains leading scandal sheet, The intelligence information of the World, published an liquid ecstasy front page story, under the headline F1 Boss Has Sick Nazi Orgy With 5 Hookers. It told how Max Mosley, President of the Federation Internationale de lAutomobile (FIA, the body that oversees institution motoring and racing) and son of the former British fascist leader, Sir Oswald Mosley, had, two age earlier, taken part in a sa domasochistic orgy with a Nazi theme in a private apartment in London.The story was accompanied by photographs taken clandestinely by one of the women in cooperation with the News of the World, which readers were invited to download from the papers website. Max Mosley admitted participating in this (not illegal) happening, but sued the News of the World for breach of privacy the newspaper argued that it was in the public spare-time activity that Mosleys sexual activities be disclosed.The presiding judge, Justice Eady, rejected the newspapers defense, and awarded Max Mosley 60,000 English pounds ($115,000) stipend for the invasion of his privacy, the highest damages so far given for a affection brought under Article 8. There is a curious aspect to Eadys judgment. He rejected the News of the Worlds public interest defense, because he found no evidence that the sadomasochistic party had a Nazi theme. This implies that had at that place been a Nazi theme, it could have been lucid t o publish it, given Mosleys set as FIA president.But surely the particular nature of Mosleys private fantasies is tangential to the case. It is hard to see why I am less authorise to privacy because I am turned on by a Nazi uniform than I would be if I were excited by a pair of knickers. What Eadys judgment did accomplish was to highlight the crucial distinction, necessary for all clear thinking about privacy, between what interests the public and what is in the public interest. So how can this distinction be made effective? France has a privacy jurisprudence that explicitly defines both the scope of privacy and the circumstances in which the law applies.By contrast, in Britain it is left to settle to decide what the right to privacy means. There is a natural venerate that specific legislation designed to protect privacy would muzzle legitimate press inquiries. At the same time, it is widely acknowledged (except by approximately editors and journalists) that a great deal of m edia intrusion is simply an abuse of press freedom, with the sole aim of boosting circulation by feeding public prurience. A law that curtails the abuse of press power while protecting its freedom to expose the abuse of political power would be difficult, but not impossible, to frame.The indispensable principle is that the media should not be allowed to pander to the publics prurience under cover of protecting the public interest. What famous people indeed ordinary people, too do in private should be off limits to the media unless they give authorization for those activities to be reported, photographed, or filmed. The only exceptions would be if a newspaper has conceivable grounds for believing that the individuals concerned are breaking the law, or that, nevertheless if they are not breaking the law, they are behaving in such a way as to render them unfit to perform the duties expected of them.Thus, a pop stars consumption of illegal drugs may be reported, but not his or he r sexual ha spotlights (if they are legal). The private life of a pol may be revealed if it is expected to have consequences for the way the country is being governed that of a top executive of a public company if it may affect the returns to shareholders. This should be the only public interest defense operational to a media outlet that is sued for invasion of privacy. The media might become a bit drearier, but public life would be far healthier. The author is a professor emeritus of political economy at Warwick University