Freedom of the gutter press

Watching the 2008 Max Mosley privacy case I found myself wanting both sides to lose, rather like a Liverpool supporter watching Everton versus Manchester United. But it demonstrates how fiendishly difficult it is to pick apart the issue of freedom of the press versus personal privacy.
Into this issue has stepped the prime minister. His declaration that parliament should be guardians of the line to be drawn between press freedom and privacy, rather than judges is certainly timely. His contention, quite rightly, is that parliament is elected and accountable, while judges are not. Fair enough. But a little deeper thought leads us to another conclusion – that MPs, who will eventually have to seek re-election, may be subject to the vagaries of shifting public opinion and will fail to reach rational conclusions which are in the long term interests of a civilized society. Indeed public opinion on the issue may well be being subverted by a relentless tabloid campaign to undermine the privacy laws, and these are the very organizations that stand most to gain from such a shift.
The waters are further muddied by the growth of the social media. Consider this. An injunction that gags the media, preventing them naming and ‘shaming’ individuals who have transgressed society’s norms, can deal with the press, broadcasters and, in theory the Internet. But it cannot stop ordinary, everyday gossip. It cannot stop the guy who sidles up to you in a pub or a club, saying “ ‘ere, I ‘spose you’ve ‘eard who that footballer is who’s ‘avin’ it off with XXXXXX". I suppose that the premier league footballer who is currently the subject of a super-injunction is well known to everyone involved in professional football. All I really have to do is seek out someone who knows someone who knows a professional footballer and I have my answer. Now what is the difference between such ‘legal’ gossip and the kind of gossip that speeds round the social media? The only difference is that one is faster than the other, yet the law is making a distinction. Refer to an injunctionee on Twitter or Facebook and you are in breach of the law. Discuss it in the pub and club and that’s OK. Just to illustrate, I think I know who the footballer and the TV celeb are because I have friends who know people in both professions and the same names keep coming up.
But, to return to the press, we have a further problem. The tabloids' claim that they are serving the public interest is palpably nonsense. It is nonsense for two reasons – first they are really serving the public appetite for public prurience, second they are really serving their own interests. We know that, don’t we ? So, we may want freedom of the press, but do we want freedom of the gutter press ?
There is no answer to this riddle. One’s instinct it to preserve the freedom of the press, however misused it may be by despicable hack journalists. This is because we fear the Orwellian nightmare coming to pass. But our privacy is indeed precious. Who should hold the line ? My feeling is that it should be judges, at least, that is, until politicians can command more public confidence. Then again I think there is nothing wrong with a dynamic dialogue between judges and politicians on the issue.





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.