Dpp1978
Posts: 1007
Joined: 2/4/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jon5000
Aaaaaand here's the Sun doing exactly what they would never, ever do to the nation's favourite woman Kate Middleton to someone else http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4544438/Selma-Blairs-baby-flashes-her-boob.html
How dare they claim any kind of moral high ground. Absolutely disgraceful. In the public interest how?
It's not quite the same though.
Not that I'm defending The Sun's actions, but, at least under English law, for privacy to be breached there has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you walk down the street, or are in any public place for that matter, you are fair game as long as the photographer's behaviour isn't excessive (eg. threatening, harassing etc.).
Being on a private estate miles from anyone else, so that an extremely telephoto lens is needed to see you, almost certainly implies a reasonable expectation of privacy.
If there was a reasonable expectation of privacy the newspaper can only publish if there is a compelling public interest reason for doing so. Without that reason they can be actioned in the courts. The public interest argument only comes into play where there is an expectation of privacy, so it is irrelevant to the Selma Blair pictures.
Note that this doesn't stop people from taking photos: only from publishing them. That doesn't mean our hypothetical creepy bloke on the beach will necessarily get away with it. He is probably at the very least committing a public order offence.
That is without considering the fact that these photos were not taken, or in the Duchess of Cambridge photos' case published, in England so there are probably (I'm no expert in this area) jurisdictional issues to be addressed as well as consideration of the law of the country they were taken. The person who took the photo of the Duchess of Cambridge did in fact commit an offence in France and can potentially go to prison. The magazine, even with a hefty fine, will still probably come out ahead, so there is little reason not to publish.
Personally I'd love to see this aspect of the law tightened, with real punishments available for those who breach privacy without good reason. This would require much harsher financial penalties for those who publish pictures of this kind; punishments which make publishing them financially disastrous.
If, for example, the publishing for such pictures meant that all gross revenue from the issue in question was forfeited (after a thorough audit of the accounts at the company in breach's expense) I'm sure this sort of thing would cease very quickly.
Of course there would have to be a "good faith" defence for those who published in the honest opinion it was in the public interest, as long as they had in place and followed sufficient protocols and policies to minimise the risk.
But then there would still be the internet, and that has proven to be all but impossible to police in any meaningful way.
< Message edited by Dpp1978 -- 19/9/2012 11:50:21 AM >
|
Printable Version
RE: The Queen Is Nude! - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread