it is alleged that celebrities all over the world feel that media infinges their rights association
Answers
Answer:
YES IT IS. So now we know. There is such a thing as a legal right to privacy. Our judges have said so. But the irony is that the case that spelled it out was not about some sensitive, shrinking celebrity anxious to avoid prying paparazzi lenses or intrusive tabloid inquiries. On the contrary, the people seeking to assert their right to privacy had deliberately courted massive publicity and had been paid a huge sum of money to allow themselves to be seen in the world's media.
The wedding of the year (until it was supplanted by Madonna's) was held at the Plaza Hotel under conditions of absurdly exaggerated security. The reason was not so much the possibility of gatecrashers as the far more horrifying threat of uninvited cameras. Douglas and Zeta-Jones had signed a contract giving OK! magazine exclusive rights to taking and publishing photos of the nuptials. Invited guests were sternly warned not to bring cameras; they were electronically frisked anyway. Everyone working at the wedding signed a draconian contract promising not to take snaps, on pain of unimaginable legal consequences if they disobeyed.
But some cameras did sneak in, including one whose portfolio of nine not very good photos found its way to arch-rival Hello! magazine, which, to OK!'s dismay, was to publish them three days before OK! went on sale.
And so to court. OK! raised several legal issues in its - ultimately unsuccessful - attempt to stop Hello! from publishing. But the point that raised the privacy issue came from the Douglases personally. They want to sue Hello! for damages for breach of privacy. But surely they had abandoned their right - or sold it - by allowing the ceremony and reception to be photographed, and the results published?
Not quite, said Lord Justice Sedley in the appeal court. They had insisted on a veto over what photos were to be used, "in order to maintain the kind of image which is professionally and personally important to them". By retaining that editorial control, they were in effect saying that any pictures other than those personally chosen by them invaded their privacy.
The appeal court decided that the newlyweds were likely to succeed in any claim for damages against Hello! for breach of privacy. Whether in fact they win their case and how much they will get if they do is for a future court to decide. What's important is that this was the first case in which an English court has specifically said that we now have a law of privacy to protect individuals. The second case may well come later today, with a decision on the claim of the two killers of James Bulger to be granted lifetime anonymity. The Human Rights Act gives them the right to be left alone, free from media prying, they say.
But there is another twist to the law. The right to privacy arises because Britain has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into our national laws. Article 8 says that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life". But a little way further is Article 10, which guarantees the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. When the media want to publish something - whether information or pictures - about someone's private life, the two are bound to clash.
The Human Rights Act exhorts the judges to have particular regard to freedom of expression when deciding which way to rule, and gives the media a public-interest defence against anyone trying to stop them from publishing. That still leaves the judges with a sensitive balancing act to perform, and it is by no means clear which way they will turn when faced with a free speech-versus-media intrusion dilemma. Until recently, the French press has been particularly timid in revealing information about politicians, even where it would have been in the public interest. The late President Mitterrand's cancer, surely relevant to his capacity to carry out his duties, was kept from the nation virtually throughout his presidency, as was the existence of his daughter by a long-term lover - though that revelation might not have met the public interest test. The French privacy laws have also had a chilling effect in an area that worries the British media - the investigation of wrongdoing and corruption. It is generally accepted that crooked businessmen and dodgy politicians are more easily able to escape scrutiny because of the deterrent effect of privacy laws.
When the Duchess of York sought advice on blocking publication in the English tabloids of pictures showing her cavorting topless and having her toes sucked by her "financial adviser", she was firmly told that there was no law of privacy that could help her. By contrast, in France, a magazine that published those pictures not only had to pay the duchess damages for infringing her privacy but was punished in the criminal courts with a fine. If a similar case were to come before an English court today, would she be able to stop such photos being published?