The right to privacy in the British media came under intense scrutiny after a Twitter user published the names of celebrities who allegedly obtained court orders to prevent identification.
Britain's privacy laws were thrown into chaos after the publication on the micro-blogging website of names of celebrities thought to have obtained so-called super-injunctions to hide personal scandals.
It meant that while newspapers and other British media are barred from revealing the identities of a footballer, a top actor and other celebrities, potentially hundreds of thousands of Twitter users have now read their names.
Mark Stephens, a prominent media lawyer, said he was "incredibly uncomfortable" about super-injunctions.
"When you have a super-injunction, you have secret justice, one might say injustice, and you also have evidence given to the court which cannot be challenged," he told the BBC.
"We cannot have footballers going off to court, getting super-injunctions so their wives and girlfriends don't find out about their affairs, and their sexual health is potentially compromised. That's just unsustainable."
Prime Minister David Cameron has said he feels "uneasy" about some of the injunctions, but blamed parliament for failing to debate the issue, allowing court orders to fill the gap which should be filled by properly thought-out legislation.
The privacy row deepened on Tuesday when the European Court of Human Rights dismissed a case brought by former world motorsport chief Max Mosley seeking to impose new restrictions on the press after he was embroiled in a sex scandal.
Mosley argued that British law had failed to protect his private life and sought a change in the law that would force newspapers to notify people before their privacy is breached in stories.
The 71-year-old has already won a case in a British court against the News of the World tabloid after it alleged he had taken part in a "sick Nazi orgy" with five prostitutes - a British judge found no evidence of a Nazi theme.
Commentators warned that if Mosley had won his European case, the effect would have been to increase further the use of injunctions brought by the rich and famous once they had been informed they were to be the subject of stories.
Mosley however argued that his case was about "whether the newspapers should have the right to publicise very private aspects of people's lives which there's no public interest in at all - it's just purely for titillation and to sell newspapers".
He said there was "a gap in the law which should have been closed".
But Stephens said if the Strasbourg-based court had ruled in favour of Mosley, it would have hit the more serious work of human rights groups such as Amnesty, Global Witness and Greenpeace in accusing individuals of wrongdoing.
The organisations have their headquarters in Britain.
"They are out doing proper investigative information gathering for society's benefit and that would have been frozen out," Stephens said.
"They don't have the money like Max Mosley to go to court to defend themselves."
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said there was a need for a serious debate on the right balance between an individual's "undoubted right to privacy" and freedom of speech and expression in a country which prized its free press very highly.
"But there isn't a terribly easy answer," Clark told BBC Radio. "The Court of Human Rights seems just to have decided that they think the British have got the balance about right at the moment."
Britain's second most senior judge, David Neuberger, known as the Master of the Rolls, is expected to release recommendations this month on curbing the use of super-injunctions.
The row over privacy was taking place as it was confirmed that Prince William and his new bride Catherine had left for their honeymoon following their April 29 wedding.
The trip to an unannounced destination is the first acid test of the British media's behaviour towards the royal newlyweds.
The royal family has warned it will take action against any media outlet which tries to pursue the couple.
aap 11 May 2011
Another example of how there are different laws for the masses and different for the privileged.
No comments:
Post a Comment