Are Celebrities Entitled To Privacy?

Philip M. Stone January 12, 2011 - Follow on Twitter

The European Court of Human Rights heard an important case Tuesday that didn’t center on whether sexually sizzling embarrassing information printed in a newspaper was true – it was – but rather was it anybody’s business except for those involved. In other words, does privacy trump freedom of the press?

And there is a strong feeling that the Court could hardly wait to get its hands on this case of former Formula 1 President Max Mosley’s sexual antics that in 2008 were plastered all over Murdoch’s Sunday News of the World tabloid, let alone the video on the newspaper’s web site. Mosley’s lawyer was invited to give a verbal summation to the court which while not unprecedented is infrequently done – and it is widely believed the court will use the Mosley case and another case involving pictures taken of Princess Caroline on a ski holiday to extend its previous ruling that said that personalities while on their own private time – not on duty, so to speak – are entitled to privacy.

Mosley took umbrage that he had no idea the newspaper was going to print its article until it appeared. He said if he had known beforehand he would have gone to the court to try and get it stopped which the newspaper’s editor probably understood which was why the story was kept secret. So now Mosley wants the law to say that media must contact the subject of such stories beforehand so there is a chance to get a pre-publication legal injunction. 

“When somebody’s privacy is about to be violated, that person should have the chance to go before a court, rather than it just being media editors that decide whether to destroy that private life,” Mosley told reporters in Strasburg at the Court’s headquarters after the hearing.

 He had earlier told a BBC radio program, “If a newspaper is going to write something about your private life, or something you might reasonably wish to keep private, they should tell you beforehand. I think press freedom is absolutely vital and it has to be protected at all costs. It’s the basis of a modern democracy. But that’s a very different thing from newspapers concealing from you that they are going to publish something that’s illegal.”

A British court found against the News of the World for invasion of privacy for writing about Moseley’s sexual antics with prostitutes and fined the newspaper a record £60,000. But what is £60,000 to the News of the World? It’s just a cost of doing business. So Mosley wanted something more – that newspapers shouldn’t be able to invade his privacy in the first place without his having a legal chance to stop it– and since he couldn’t get that from the UK Parliament he went instead to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article Eight of the Human Rights Act provides for the right to privacy – “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence" – whereas Article 10 provides for freedom of expression, so on the face of it there is conflict between the two. But if the past is anything to go by the Court will opt for privacy over press freedom. A UK Parliamentary Committee last year came down firmly that Mosley had a point about his privacy being invaded but the committee rejected calls to tighten privacy law (Parliament is taking a look at revising UK libel law).

Media lawyers fear that if Mosley gets his way it would greatly imperil investigative journalism since editors would be afraid of possible huge legal costs in getting a story printed. Indeed those legal costs will scare away most publishers unless they have deep pockets like Murdoch.

What really worries the tabloids is not so much the threat to investigative journalism as it is the threat to “kiss and tell”. Few weeks go by that a tabloid hasn’t paid a woman to tell all about love antics with some British personality. It is their “bread and butter” and if prior notification was necessary then that would really put a crimp in the routine.  

It was back in 2004 that The Court of Human Rights surprised European media with a ruling that pictures taken of Princess Caroline taken when she was not on a public function and published in Germany violated her privacy. That ruling overturned two judgments by German courts that the pictures were ok. She is now at it again, asking the Court to rule against two German magazines that in 2002 published pictures of she and her husband taking a walk while on a skiing holiday although the text told about the ill health of her father, Prince Rainier. The magazines said since the story concerned Prince Rainier’s health it was in the public interest to see what his children were up to at such a time of family crisis.

A ruling in that case and the Mosley case is not expected for some months, but with both of those threads before it the Court now has the opportunity to really nail down what is private and what isn’t, what needs to be done to protect privacy, and, when it comes to personalities, where is the line in the sand. Quite an upheaval is expected when those decisions come down.

See also in ftm Knowledge

The Privacy Issue

The privacy issue touches every aspect of media. From consumer protection and the rights of individuals to news coverage privacy is hotly debated. New media and old media stumble and the courts decide. ftm offers views from every side of the Privacy Issue. 37 pages. PDF (April 2010)

ftm members Order Here

Available at no charge to ftm Members, others from €49
Order