This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
Expert Links
On Monday morning, Prince William and his new wife left their Anglesey home. Their destination? A mystery. The royal couple were determined that no intrusive reporters or photographers would discover the secret location of their long awaited honeymoon.
n
But the secret is out: a proud local tourism official revealed that Kate and Wills would be staying on a private island in the Seychelles, in the Indian Ocean.
Tabloid editors now face a dilemma. Photos of the honeymoon could sell a lot of newspapers, with the public hungry for stories about the newlyweds. But Buckingham Palace, and the Prince himself, have already pleaded with the press for the couple's privacy to be respected. Openly violating that request could look bad, and could alienate readers.
n The right to privacy has been at the forefront of public debate recently, after a string of high profile scandals. Then Daily Telegraphn has just been criticised for secretly recording a private conversation with a cabinet minister. Then News of the Worldn has come under fire for publishing 'bikini photos' of Kate and Pippa Middleton on holiday. Meanwhile the list of celebrity voicemails revealed to have been hacked into illegally by reporters keeps on growing.n n Britain's tabloid newspapers are notoriously ruthless in pursuit of a good story. n n They're helped in this by the fact that Britain has no national privacy law - guidelines issued by the Press Complaints Commission are meant to keep editors in check, but the penalties for rule-breakers are anything but severe. n Judges have imposed so-called 'superinjunctions' on some stories, preventing the media from mentioning them. But many of these stories have recently appeared online, exposing the flaws in the current system. n n Right to pry?n n Legislators would have to balance two competing rights - on the one hand, the right to privacy and on the other, the right to free speech. Journalists say they have a duty to investigate and report on stories of public interest. Celebrities say their private lives should remain private. Where do you draw the line? " Dominic Lawson writes that in the age of Twitter, privacy is a thing of the past. A useful
Guardian
article on the Human Rights Act, which brought the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Photographers have always gone to great lengths to get images of celebrities in private. In this BBC video a veteran photographer describes how he sneaked a peak into Elizabeth Taylor's yacht. A brilliant article by the actor Hugh Grant, who turned the tables on a tabloid phone-hacker. So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.
n
n The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guarantees the right to 'respect' for a person's 'private and family life.' But in the absence of dedicated UK law, judges are forced to decide for themselves how and where the ECHR should be applied.n
n Some MPs are now calling for the UK to introduce its own privacy law, to clarify the situation. But those who've attempted to tackle the subject head-on have found it difficult.n Expert Links
Q & A
Britain's tabloid newspapers are notoriously ruthless in pursuit of a good story.
n They're helped in this by the fact that Britain has no national privacy law - guidelines issued by the Press Complaints Commission are meant to keep editors in check, but the penalties for rule-breakers are anything but severe.
n
n The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), guarantees the right to 'respect' for a person's 'private and family life.' But in the absence of dedicated UK law, judges are forced to decide for themselves how and where the ECHR should be applied.n
Judges have imposed so-called 'superinjunctions' on some stories, preventing the media from mentioning them. But many of these stories have recently appeared online, exposing the flaws in the current system.
n Right to pry?n n Legislators would have to balance two competing rights - on the one hand, the right to privacy and on the other, the right to free speech. Journalists say they have a duty to investigate and report on stories of public interest. Celebrities say their private lives should remain private. Where do you draw the line? " Dominic Lawson writes that in the age of Twitter, privacy is a thing of the past. A useful
Guardian
article on the Human Rights Act, which brought the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Photographers have always gone to great lengths to get images of celebrities in private. In this BBC video a veteran photographer describes how he sneaked a peak into Elizabeth Taylor's yacht. A brilliant article by the actor Hugh Grant, who turned the tables on a tabloid phone-hacker. So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.
n Some MPs are now calling for the UK to introduce its own privacy law, to clarify the situation. But those who've attempted to tackle the subject head-on have found it difficult.n Expert Links
Q & A
Legislators would have to balance two competing rights - on the one hand, the right to privacy and on the other, the right to free speech. Journalists say they have a duty to investigate and report on stories of public interest. Celebrities say their private lives should remain private. Where do you draw the line?
Q & A
"
Dominic Lawson writes that in the age of Twitter, privacy is a thing of the past. A useful
Guardian
article on the Human Rights Act, which brought the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Photographers have always gone to great lengths to get images of celebrities in private. In this BBC video a veteran photographer describes how he sneaked a peak into Elizabeth Taylor's yacht. A brilliant article by the actor Hugh Grant, who turned the tables on a tabloid phone-hacker. So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.Q & A
A useful
Guardian
article on the Human Rights Act, which brought the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Photographers have always gone to great lengths to get images of celebrities in private. In this BBC video a veteran photographer describes how he sneaked a peak into Elizabeth Taylor's yacht. A brilliant article by the actor Hugh Grant, who turned the tables on a tabloid phone-hacker. So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.Q & A
Photographers have always gone to great lengths to get images of celebrities in private. In this BBC video a veteran photographer describes how he sneaked a peak into Elizabeth Taylor's yacht. A brilliant article by the actor Hugh Grant, who turned the tables on a tabloid phone-hacker. So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.Q & A
A brilliant article by the actor Hugh Grant, who turned the tables on a tabloid phone-hacker. So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.Q & A
So privacy rules are too lax at the moment?: It's more that they're too unclear. Newspapers often go too far, as recent scandals have proved. On the other hand, it's absurd that they can't print stories which are already common knowledge online. What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.
What's the justification for intruding on people's private lives?: There's an argument some celebrities, who make money off their fame, are fair targets. That obviously doesn't apply to Prince William though. The other justification is that printing a story is 'in the public interest.' Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.
Meaning what?: Meaning that the public needs to know. At the moment, though, the public interest gets interpreted very broadly. It's argued, for example, that people should be told if a public figure is behaving 'immorally', by having an affair for instance. But is it really our business? That's what a new privacy law would have to decide.