Time for a privacy law?

When recording the recent CWU Youth podcast with Libel Reform one of the interesting points of the discussion came about when we were discussing the differences between public interest, and things which interest the public. Perhaps a subtle distinction, but one that is very, very important in respect of the issues around the freedom of the press, the status of libel law, and the private sphere.

A couple of weeks ago allegations surrounding the sex life of England footballer Wayne Rooney surfaced which has led to me thinking a lot about these issues, and where the boundaries lie.

Straight from the top it is my belief that normally peoples sex lives, even those in the public eye, is not something that would normally pass the “public interest” test. And for me the only time it is reasonable for the press to report on things in people’s private lives is where there is a public interest to do so.

For example, if a politician is elected on a platform of “family values” and proposes a public policy agenda around penalising those who do not ascribe to a narrow, moral, viewpoint of personal sexual or relationship conduct, then it would be in the public interest to report that they were a hypocrite and did not conform to the standards which they expect other too.

But with celebrities, including footballers, there is a different situation. Celebs may court the spotlight and invite press coverage of themselves but their actions cant have an effect on public policy. People are interested in what celebs do (though for the life of me I cannot understand why) but that does not follow that there is a public interest in what they do.

Perhaps you can make an argument that if a footballer has profited from public pronouncements about fidelity, and family life, that this forms a significant part of the reason why they are wealthy and in the public eye. Then the news that this is based on a lie may be in the public interest. However personally I struggle to think of a celebrity or footballer for who individual sexual morality is a big part of their popular appeal or fame.

Many would argue that because celebrities court the public eye, that they make a Faustian pact with the gutter press to enrich themselves that somehow this makes everything else in their personal life “fair game”. I disagree. Like many others I find the celebrity obsession in our society distasteful, tacky and downright boring. But I am not sure that means though, because you sold your wedding snaps to OK that it is fair game to phone up your ex partners and report details of your living habits to the world at large.

I wonder where the boundaries are, is it OK to intrude into the lives of celebrities children (press coverage of Katie Price’s eldest son has at times been disgraceful)? Where family members are seriously ill? Where the celebs have suffered a bereavement?

The status quo seems to be that the gutter press own your ass if you have ever courted publicity, even on unrelated matter, and the self regulation and even our restrictive libel laws do nothing to curb the worst excesses of our red tops.

I am extremely uncomfortable about any idea of statutory control of the press by the state. It seems to me to be the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. Freedom of the press is a fundamental part of Liberal Democracy (which is why I am keen on Libel Reform). But I do think that privacy is something that deserves to be protected.

I am increasingly becoming convinced that some sort of statutory definition of private sphere is needed, and that this should relate only to individuals and not business’ or organisations. Further this would need to have a very narrow definition, I think it would really only apply to peoples “family life”, and not for example to their business interests.

I feel that the press should have to be able to demonstrate a public interest in intruding into the sphere, and that this would be a better basis of determining these issues.

This obviously raises questions about “freedom of speech” and “Freedom of the Press”. For me though these are already bounded freedoms. I would say the proscriptions on say, false advertising, are pretty uncontroversial. I’d say that a narrowly defined privacy law, related to individuals family lives and not to business or corporate issue; combined with meaningful libel reform (which would free the press more than this would constrain them) would be a good deal.

Share

21. September 2010 by Ralph Ferrett
Categories: Activism | Tags: , , , , , | 1 comment

One Comment

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge