Does the UK need a privacy law?

Over the past few days there have been fervent discussions in British newspapers about the future of privacy laws in the United Kingdom. 

The arguments both in favour and against introducing a privacy law have been predictably emotive, the Guardian mentioning the allegations of foul play leveled against Kate and Gerry McCann as a reason why such a law is needed, while the Daily Mail have referenced the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as grounds for why Britain should "never" impose privacy legislation.

Angus McBride in The Guardian, arguing in favour of a privacy law, argues:

"It is said that only the rich and famous have access to the law. But it is generally the rich and famous that are of interest to the prurient press, so are more likely to require the protection of the courts. And is there really a public interest in the private lives of footballers or entertainers? What right do we have to pry behind their bedroom doors?

"In any case, is not the real scandal that ordinary members of the public without access to football-sized wage packets do not have protection against the power of the press? Legal aid should be available to those without the means to hire expensive lawyers.

"...I am reminded reading Kate McCann's deeply moving book that on their return from Portugal, having been declared suspects in their daughter's disappearance, Gerry and Kate McCann asked me to visit newspaper editors to explain that there was no truth in any of the allegations made in the more scurrilous parts of the Portuguese press, and that the material was the product of vindictive leaks. I explained to each editor that uncorroborated evidence from a sniffer dog and inconclusive DNA (which could have been attributable to any member of the family) found in the boot of a hire car driven by the McCanns created not even a prima facie case... Bile-infested internet comment on the McCanns was fuelled by this early reporting, and continues to this day."

In contrast, the Daily Mail's Stephen Glover says:

"The super-injunctions issued on behalf of footballers do not in themselves greatly concern me. The question is where they are leading. We should be concerned by the orders being handed out by judges to shield more significant public figures. If this process continues, in a few years’ time we will find ourselves with the kind of privacy law that has protected Mr Strauss-Kahn.

"Where there is evidence of sexual impropriety, it is usually a safe bet that evidence of other impropriety will follow. It does not at all surprise me that Mr Strauss-Kahn was once forced to resign from the Socialist Party over a financial scandal, though he was later acquitted.

"I don’t want people like him thriving in British public life, doing virtually what they please in the knowledge that they cannot be written about in the Press."

Big Brother Watch supporters are unlikely to have a united position on this issue.  Do post a comment letting us know what you think.

Comments

[Jamie Davis]

This post drives home at the heart of privacy issues.

As always, the fine line between privacy and freedom of the press. This line is quite subjective.

I suspect anyone who doesn't approach this subject without an open mind on the exact balance will find themselves disappointed in the long run. They are unlikely to get everything their way.

[Andrew]

I'm on the side of freedom of speech. Freedom of the press equals freedom of speech. What I can legally tell my friends, I should be able to publish in a newspaper, however unpleasant it might be. A right to privacy means it is illegal to bug a bedroom, tap phones or steal correspondence. It must not stop freedom of speech.

[Lee]

Well the cat's out of the bag now. A list of all the known injunctions, naming names and giving details has been posted online. I've re-posted the link...sod the consequences.

[NeverSurrender]

Yes, I absolutely think that we need a privacy law. What people do perfectly legally in their own lives is none of anyone else's business. It is one thing for people to gossip but it is not acceptable for it to be splashed across the pages of a paper.
Such a law should not just affect the press. It should ensure our privacy in going about our lawful daily lives as well thus putting an end to the grotesque mass surveillance inflicted upon us by the NuCommunist party.

[jogn malpas]

a few 'letters to the editor' do not mean free speech.
And free speech is not the same as free press in any way. the media are big business owned by people of a like mind.
And they want to mould public opinion and not reflect it.

[Andrew]

If you limit what newspapers can say, you'll next be limiting what I can say. Do we want a secret legal system? It's a slippery slope.

[freewhat?]

Newspapers do not publish stories about private lives because they believe it is their moral duty to inform us about the private lives of others (do they believe that it is really in the public interest?) - they do it because they hope that there are enough people out there that will buy a newspaper to read about it. This is about money and selling newspapers.

[Purlieu]

Indeed, so let them take out a regular injunction.

[Andrew]

In the Trafigura case, a super injunction was granted. Yet it obvious to me if not the Judge that there was a public interest. No-one can say if there is a public interest in the other cases because the details are secret. It is just said that because some footballer finds it embarrassing if his wife were to find out about an affair, we have a law restricting free speech. Due to this secrecy, other people are wrongly the subject of gossip.

[NeverSurrender]

No one should have to go to court to protect their personal privacy. This should be automatic. It should be up to those who want to publish the information to go to court to justify why it is in the public interest that it be published not the other way round as it is now. I cannot see why this should not apply to some extent to businesses as well. If a newspaper has evidence of wrongdoing as in the case of Trafigura, they would have no difficulty in gaining permission to print the story. This would not interfere with freedom of speech, a concept that I wholeheartedly support but which has already been compromised, and it would prevent the press from ruining the lives of people who have broken no laws.

[Andrew]

In fact super injunctions were granted in the Trafigura and Sir Fred Goodwin cases which prevented newspapers printing their stories. We cannot have the courts deciding what we can or cannot read. No newspaper would ever be published if it had to go to court first to get permission to publish information. I might object strongly to a newspaper disclosing I own tobacco shares. It would be a breach of my privacy! There is no end to the information people would object to.

[NeverSurrender]

Sorry Andrew I just can't agree with you. It is none of anyone else's business what someone does perfectly legally in their private lives. To me there has to be a very good reason to break that privacy and the best place to decide that is in the courts. It would not stop newspapers publishing genuine public interest stories at all but it would stop the gutter press garbage that currently fills most of our papers. There are plenty of people anyway who are happy to have things published about them and who would gladly give papers their permission especially if some cash were waved in front of them.

[Andrew]

Give them the chance, the rich and powerful will restrict what newspapers and I can say about them. Embarrassing facts will be suppressed. The only restriction should be truth. If he lived in Britain, Arnold Schwarzenegger could have got a super injunction to stop his wife finding out about his child with the housekeeper. If the wife's mother had tried to tell her daughter, she would be in contempt of court.

[NeverSurrender]

I have absolutely no problem with embarrassing facts not being published. As long as it's legal it is no one else's business. I do however have a problem with only the rich being able to stay private. Everyone should be free from the press intruding into their lives without good cause.

[Marcus Junius Brutus]

First observation - privacy is not being dealt with even-handedly. Was it fair for some footballer (I believe the injunction is still in force even though the perss have published his name) to have privacy while at the same time this prevented the counter-party - Imogen - from defending herself from claims of being a blackmailer?

Secondly - Trafigura and Fred the Shred were clearly public interest cases. Did Fred's injunction prevent the regulator from investigating?!?

Thirdly - a very very rich man who is a major contributor to the labour party has a superinjunction which I believe also opposes public interest.

Finally Hemming has disclosed in Parliament some serious abuses of gagging by the family courts which seem more aimed at preventing disclosure of misbehaviour of social services than protection of the children. Clauses that even prevent the parents from discussing their case with their MP - which surely goes against the supremacy of Parliament.