Privacy_and_the_Media

a) Case A - Article 8, Human Rights Acts (HRA) clearly provides that ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life’ which includes his extra-marital affair. Moreover, Falcon may have valid points about the importance of the family unit, which could help society. These may be disregarded if his affair was made public and his reputation ruined. Maybe he should claim a breach of confidence because when Sandy Sparrow consented to the affair she agreed to secrecy and betrayed that confidence when she went to the press. In opposition, there is a legitimate public interest as he is a politician elected by the public so the public will want to know what he does, especially when related to his work. An exception to the right to privacy stated in Article 8 is ‘for the protection of health and morals’ (HRA). An affair wouldn’t normally be public interest, rather public curiosity. In his case it is different because he is making speeches about the significance of the family unit, yet his actions (i.e. the affair, termination of his child) suggests otherwise, questioning his morals. The press may see it in the public’s interest to know of his integrity in the matter as the public elected him. Also the fact that he is a government minister giving high profile speeches means he is in the public eye, so he shouldn’t have had an affair if he did not want it published. Clearly in this case public interest far outweighs Falcon’s right to privacy so the Daily Globe should be allowed to publish! Case B - There is a genuine public interest as he attempted suicide in public and not at home or a private place. The footage of Colin having a knife and then being stopped by the police would clearly portray the effectiveness of the cameras in protecting the public and preventing crime. Two exceptions stated in Article 8 (HRA) to breaching privacy are ‘for the prevention of disorder and crime, for the protection of health...’ The crime prevented here was suicide and in turn Colin’s health was protected. This provides justification for CCTV monitoring and the media infringing Colin’s privacy rights by publishing. To the contrary, it can be argued there is a serious breach of Colin’s privacy rights. He is an ordinary person so does not expect his actions in public to be recorded. The CCTV camera itself is a violation of his privacy under Article 8 (HRA). Furthermore, the broadcasting of his suicide attempt to 9.2 million viewers seriously interferes with his right to keep it private. His identity wasn’t properly protected due to his distinguishable features that were still apparent in the footage. Therefore, anyone who knew him would know of his suicide attempt causing him embarrassment at the least and more seriously, affect his already fragile mental state. The police are there to protect the public, but if they reveal Colin’s identity that is not protecting his well being. Evidently, Colin’s wellbeing is much more important than public interest even if it is genuine, so he should succeed. Case C - As a famous writer Alana is a celebrity which naturally creates public interest. The media can argue that they are entitled to publish because by doing so they will be satisfying the public’s interest in Alana. Also she was in a public place, so the media have a right to publish information obtained from public areas. However, Alana’s lack of privacy rights does not extend to her daughter whose rights to privacy are the same as an ordinary person’s. An ordinary person does not expect to be photographed from afar when walking along a public road so when the photographer used a ‘long-lens’ camera he violated her privacy and breached the PCC codes which prohibits this use of long-lens cameras. The fact that she is a child means her privacy is regarded as more important by the law. When Great Pics Ltd took a picture without Alana’s consent they infringed Bertha’s privacy rights. Moreover, what Bertha looks like does not qualify as a public interest that can outweigh her rights to privacy. Additionally, the National Daily Times used a quotation from a different time alongside the photograph so the article is inaccurate, violating the PCC code again. In conclusion, due to Bertha’s privacy rights being breached without a significant public interest and the violations of the PCC codes Alana should win the case. b) Should celebrities be treated differently' One reason in favour is that by becoming a celebrity press intrusion is part of their job description as they are in the public eye. Also celebrities often welcome the media’s intrusion as this creates publicity for them. The demand for details about celebrities’ lives creates public interest and the press are only satisfying that demand. Moreover, the public rely on the press to uncover and inform them of serious deception from elected public figures which press intrusion effectively achieves. Also, the fact that press can uncover serious misconduct of public figures may deter them from any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, famous people should have some right of privacy so that they can live a normal life without the media following their every step. Although they are in the public eye they do not expect every aspect of their lives to be broadcast to the world and the press should respect that. Also intimate details of celebrities’ lives (break up, drug problem, affair, etc) should not be published unless there is broader legal or moral issue relating to the behaviour. In conclusion, I believe that because famous people are in the public eye it is understandable that they will be treated differently when seeking privacy from the press. However the gap shouldn’t be so wide and all press intrusion should be justified by a legitimate reason, rather than mere curiosity on who had an affair for example. A balance is needed between discretion and free speech, privacy and the press! (NB. The PCC Code is the Press Complaints Commission Code which governs the practice of the press and allows the PCC to issue injunctions and prohibit publications when any of the codes area breached.) REFERENCES SPENCER, M & SPENCER, J. 2001. Human Rights Law In a Nutshell - 1st Edition. London: Sweet and Maxwell LTD. WELSH, T & GREENWOOD, W. 2003. McNae’s Essential Law For journalists – 17th Edition. London: LexisNexis Butterworths.