Blueprint for Change - our three key recommendations to protect privacy and reputations
Entertainment & media
Schillings news | 1 October 2010
The Liberal Democrat minister in the Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, has spoken recently about the desire for a new privacy law.
Earlier this year we commissioned research on living a private life in the public eye. One of the overwhelming findings was that people in the industry are generally dissatisfied with the current laws regarding reputation and privacy. There are three key changes we think would help high profile individuals protect their privacy and reputations without compromising the vital principle of freedom of expression.
1. The press should have to notify people before publishing stories that will seriously invade their privacy
Everyone in Europe has the right to privacy. But if the first someone knows of what’s going to be published about them is when they read it in a newspaper over their cornflakes, that right is completely undermined.
Someone who has had their private life splashed all over the pages of a newspaper can’t reverse the harm. They can only claim damages. And even then the amount is usually pretty small. A person’s privacy is like a soap bubble; once burst, it’s lost for ever.
At the moment the system in effect encourages the media to behave irresponsibly by not contacting the target of a story in advance. This should be changed so that the media tell people in advance before they publish truly private information. The courts could then very quickly determine whether the story is in the public interest or whether it’s more important to protect the privacy of the individual. Impartial tribunals are better-placed to decide this than editors motivated by profits and under pressure to produce scoops.
2. It should be easier to obtain injunctions preventing the publication of untrue allegations
Because of a quirk of our legal system, it’s generally not possible to obtain a court order to stop untrue allegations from being published. Instead, the law adopts a “publish and be dammed” approach. The media is free to say whatever it wants on the basis that if it is untrue, the victim can sue and vindicate their reputation after the event. If something is defamatory therefore (unlike if something is going to invade someone’s privacy), it’s not normally possible to obtain an injunction in advance to stop it being published.
Being able to sue after the event however, is often of little comfort to someone who has just had their reputation ruined by the publication of a false allegation. There will always be people who believe there is ‘no smoke without fire’. Plus apologies or corrections rarely have the same prominence as the original article and damages are generally fairly small.
We believe the antiquated rule that prohibits defamation pre-publication injunctions should be changed so that it is possible, in appropriate cases, to obtain an injunction before an untrue story is published.
3. Speedier trials
We believe that cases involving people’s reputation and/or their privacy should progress to trial quicker.
Speedy trials would greatly cut the costs of litigation. That would benefit both sides. It would also lead to greater certainty, which again would help everyone. And if pre-publication issues are resolved faster, then when a story is held to be in the public interest, the media would be able to publish it while it’s still newsworthy.
