Abstract
The UK government has recently announced plans to reform the Human Rights Act 1998, with one of its objects to enhance free speech and freedom of the press. A particular issue is the increasing growth of privacy rights witnessed in both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, raising concern that the over protection of privacy rights might have a chilling effect on press freedom and the of reporting of matters of public interest or debate.
This article will examine two recent judicial decisions – one from the UK Supreme Court and the other from the European Court of Human Rights – which have favoured individual privacy over and above press freedom and free speech, and which might indicate a wider trend in favour of individual privacy when it is in conflict with freedom of expression. In both cases, the courts were critical of the tactics employed by the press, stressing that the press cannot, without judicial oversight, rely on its own editorial judgment to excuse what would otherwise be a breach of privacy. This issue of responsible journalism was a critical factor in the European Court’s decision to favour individual privacy over press freedom, and was also relevant in the first case in establishing the rationale for the starting point of privacy expectation in investigation cases. The article will highlight these issues to identify whether these rulings are damaging to notions and values of free speech, press freedom and editorial judgement.
This article will examine two recent judicial decisions – one from the UK Supreme Court and the other from the European Court of Human Rights – which have favoured individual privacy over and above press freedom and free speech, and which might indicate a wider trend in favour of individual privacy when it is in conflict with freedom of expression. In both cases, the courts were critical of the tactics employed by the press, stressing that the press cannot, without judicial oversight, rely on its own editorial judgment to excuse what would otherwise be a breach of privacy. This issue of responsible journalism was a critical factor in the European Court’s decision to favour individual privacy over press freedom, and was also relevant in the first case in establishing the rationale for the starting point of privacy expectation in investigation cases. The article will highlight these issues to identify whether these rulings are damaging to notions and values of free speech, press freedom and editorial judgement.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law |
Editors | Matthias Vanhullebusch, Steve Foster, Ben Stanford |
Place of Publication | Netherlands |
Publisher | Brill Nijhoff |
Chapter | 15 |
Pages | 451-478 |
Number of pages | 28 |
Volume | 7 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9789004538627 |
ISBN (Print) | 9789004538627 |
Publication status | Published - 31 May 2023 |
Publication series
Name | The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law |
---|---|
Publisher | BRILL |
Volume | 7 |
ISSN (Print) | 2452-0578 |
Bibliographical note
Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Keywords
- Press freedom
- respect for private life
- responsible journalism
- public interest defence
- investigation into criminal activity
- European Court jurisprudence