Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Lawyers for Media Standards—Written evidence
f. Should the commercial viability of the press be a public interest
consideration to be balanced against an individual’s right to privacy?
Insofar as freedom of expression is a right guaranteed equally to all, the law should
not in effect confer on the press a wider right to speech than that afforded to the
wider public because of the economic pressures it is currently facing.
g. Should it be the case that individuals waive some or all of their right to
privacy when they become a celebrity? A politician? A sportsperson?
Should it depend on the degree to which that individual uses their image
or private life for popularity? For money? To get elected? Does the image
the individual relies on have to relate to the information published in
order for there to be a public interest in publishing it (a ‘hypocrisy’
argument)? If so, how directly?
We accept that, in certain situations, it may be that individuals who choose to place
themselves in the public eye do not benefit from the same expectation of privacy as
‘ordinary’ members of the public, but it can never be the case that an individual
waives all their privacy rights by virtue of their position. Specific considerations attach
to politicians because of the importance of free and informed democratic debate, and
the right of the public to make informed decisions about who they choose to
represent their interests. The courts have generally placed greater emphasis on
freedom of speech in relation to political debate – see e.g. defamation defences.
Even in instances where it is said that an individual does not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, however, it should be remembered that the publication of
private information about that person will also often have an impact on others, e.g.
partners/children who cannot be said to have waived their right to privacy in relation
to that information. Everyone is entitled to a “zone of privacy” which should be
protected by the courts; however, the size of that zone will vary from person to
person depending on how much of one’s private life a claimant has chosen to put into
the public domain.
h. Should any or all individuals in the public eye be considered to be ‘role
models’ such that their private lives may be subject to enhanced public
scrutiny regardless of whether or not they make public their views on
morality or personal conduct (i.e. in the absence of a ‘hypocrisy’
argument)?
Outside of public office, we do not consider the role model argument to be
persuasive.
i. Are the courts giving appropriate weight to the value of freedom of
expression in ‘celebrity gossip’ and ‘tittle-tattle’?
The court in Mosely acknowledged that when balancing freedom of expression against
an individual’s Article 8 rights, it will be necessary to examine the use to which the
defendant intends to put his right to freedom of expression. Where the right to
freedom of expression is asserted as a justification for the publication of celebrity
gossip and tittle tattle, the right is correctly accorded less value than where the
purpose to which the right to freedom of expression is put is political speech.
509