It's been quiet around here lately but I have been sufficiently incensed by the irrational outpourings of The Daily Mail's Editor-In-Chief to emerge from my state of blogging semi-retirement to vent my spleen. As I drove to work this morning I had to listen not only to the attack launched at Eady J by Paul Dacre, but was then subjected to the most inarticulate defence of Paul Dacre's position by Managing Editor of The Sun, Graham Dudman, that I would have thought possible from someone for whom the English language constitutes the tools of his trade. Both men betrayed their complete lack of understanding of the complete and complex range of relevant issues (rather than just the narrow, self-interested issue concerning the right of the press to print anything they like) in a fit of pique at the fact that when the press were found to have overstepped the mark by publishing details of Max Mosley's sexual exploits they were fined for having breached his right to privacy, thereby giving rise, they say, to judge made privacy laws by the back door (as opposed to doing so through the parliamentary process).
Dacre said of Max Mosley's exploits "most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard". That's as may be, Mr Dacre, but that doesn't give you the inalienable right to publish details of it - you are not custos morum. He bemoaned the earlier decision of Eady J in which a man was prevented from publishing his story about a sporting celebrity having seduced his wife. Eady J was concerned about the effect such publication would have had on the celebrity's wife. Dacre commented "the judge, in an unashamed reversal of centuries of moral and social thinking, placed the rights of the adulterer above society's age-old beilef that adultery should be condemned". Well actually, no, he did not. An age-old belief that adultery should be condemned does not translate into an unqualified right for the press to print the detail of such adultery for the information, entertainment and edification of the public at large. The judge put the interests of an innocent party, the adulterer's wife, above the interest of the press who sought simply to make money from naming and shaming a celebrity in pursuit of their own aim: selling newspapers. It is quite clear from such remarks that the likes of the Editor of The Daily Mail are simply not sufficiently sophisticated in their understanding of the proper balance between the right to privacy and the right for the press to express themselves freely for the judgement as to when publication is appropriate to be left to them.
Dacre said that if the government wanted a privacy law it would be required to pass legislation through both Houses of Parliament. He concluded that "now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with the stroke of his pen". Well, I have some rather surprising news for Mr Dacre - the Human Rights Act, the one that incorporates the Article 8 right to private and family life into English Law, did in fact pass through both Houses of Parliament! His reference to the Human Rights Act being wretched rather betrays his opinion of the protection afforded to our individual human rights by this particular piece of legislation, at least when it prevents him from printing scandal-mongering nonsense in his newspaper.
The stance adopted by Dacre, and by Dunham as evidenced by his comments to the Today programme this morning, fails to recognise the nature of the rights conferred under the ECHR. Article 8 provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence. This right can only be derogated from in the circumstances prescribed in Article 8(2). Article 10, in contrast, provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The two rights are often found to be in conflict and a careful balancing exercise must be undertaken. However, Article 10 is qualified to a greater extent than Article 8, not least because the provision recognises that with the right to freedom of expression come duties and responsibilities. Article 10 rights can be subject to such restrictions as are necessary for, inter alia, the protection of the reputation or rights of others. In light of such a qualification on what basis can the press justify publishing intimate details of someone's private life which has no bearing on their capacity or ability to carry out any obligations which the public has a right to expect them to carry out?
It is quite clear that the attitude displayed by the abovementioned parties in respect of any curtailmant of the right of the press to publish anything they please regardless of whose interests are trampled along the way completely justifies the need for the judiciary to take a robust approach to the question of what is and what is not acceptable subject matter for publication. Any overly liberal judicial approach to this question might well set a precedent which the media would no doubt freely abuse. As long as editors display such a comprehensive lack of understanding about the lives they damage by publishing their sensational stories of sex orgies and the like, and consider themselves entirely justified in doing so because of some imagined public entitlement to know about it, it is clear to me that the last thing the judiciary should do, in this context, is give them an inch. For all their bleating and huffing and puffing, when it comes to the curtailment of the press to print nonsense about the sexual exploits of third rate celebrities, they only have themselves to blame. The truth is that people need protection from what the press might well otherwise regard as a freedom to print anything they like in the interests, they say, of democracy. They justify this, it seems, on the strength that whilst stories like those mentioned here are not directly related to participation in the democratic process, such scandalous stories sell papers, and the people that buy those papers then have access to the extensive reporting and analysis of public affairs, which in turn keeps them well informed and able to participate in the democratic purpose. So, if this rhetoric is to be believed it would seem that the publication of people's sordid sex lives is central, nay crucial, to the democratic process - there's logic for you. Nice try Mr Dacre. However, this lady is not for turning. You talk utter nonsense. Bah...
Dacre said of Max Mosley's exploits "most people would consider such activities to be perverted, depraved, the very abrogation of civilised behaviour of which the law is supposed to be the safeguard". That's as may be, Mr Dacre, but that doesn't give you the inalienable right to publish details of it - you are not custos morum. He bemoaned the earlier decision of Eady J in which a man was prevented from publishing his story about a sporting celebrity having seduced his wife. Eady J was concerned about the effect such publication would have had on the celebrity's wife. Dacre commented "the judge, in an unashamed reversal of centuries of moral and social thinking, placed the rights of the adulterer above society's age-old beilef that adultery should be condemned". Well actually, no, he did not. An age-old belief that adultery should be condemned does not translate into an unqualified right for the press to print the detail of such adultery for the information, entertainment and edification of the public at large. The judge put the interests of an innocent party, the adulterer's wife, above the interest of the press who sought simply to make money from naming and shaming a celebrity in pursuit of their own aim: selling newspapers. It is quite clear from such remarks that the likes of the Editor of The Daily Mail are simply not sufficiently sophisticated in their understanding of the proper balance between the right to privacy and the right for the press to express themselves freely for the judgement as to when publication is appropriate to be left to them.
Dacre said that if the government wanted a privacy law it would be required to pass legislation through both Houses of Parliament. He concluded that "now, thanks to the wretched Human Rights Act, one judge with a subjective and highly relativist moral sense can do the same with the stroke of his pen". Well, I have some rather surprising news for Mr Dacre - the Human Rights Act, the one that incorporates the Article 8 right to private and family life into English Law, did in fact pass through both Houses of Parliament! His reference to the Human Rights Act being wretched rather betrays his opinion of the protection afforded to our individual human rights by this particular piece of legislation, at least when it prevents him from printing scandal-mongering nonsense in his newspaper.
The stance adopted by Dacre, and by Dunham as evidenced by his comments to the Today programme this morning, fails to recognise the nature of the rights conferred under the ECHR. Article 8 provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence. This right can only be derogated from in the circumstances prescribed in Article 8(2). Article 10, in contrast, provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The two rights are often found to be in conflict and a careful balancing exercise must be undertaken. However, Article 10 is qualified to a greater extent than Article 8, not least because the provision recognises that with the right to freedom of expression come duties and responsibilities. Article 10 rights can be subject to such restrictions as are necessary for, inter alia, the protection of the reputation or rights of others. In light of such a qualification on what basis can the press justify publishing intimate details of someone's private life which has no bearing on their capacity or ability to carry out any obligations which the public has a right to expect them to carry out?
It is quite clear that the attitude displayed by the abovementioned parties in respect of any curtailmant of the right of the press to publish anything they please regardless of whose interests are trampled along the way completely justifies the need for the judiciary to take a robust approach to the question of what is and what is not acceptable subject matter for publication. Any overly liberal judicial approach to this question might well set a precedent which the media would no doubt freely abuse. As long as editors display such a comprehensive lack of understanding about the lives they damage by publishing their sensational stories of sex orgies and the like, and consider themselves entirely justified in doing so because of some imagined public entitlement to know about it, it is clear to me that the last thing the judiciary should do, in this context, is give them an inch. For all their bleating and huffing and puffing, when it comes to the curtailment of the press to print nonsense about the sexual exploits of third rate celebrities, they only have themselves to blame. The truth is that people need protection from what the press might well otherwise regard as a freedom to print anything they like in the interests, they say, of democracy. They justify this, it seems, on the strength that whilst stories like those mentioned here are not directly related to participation in the democratic process, such scandalous stories sell papers, and the people that buy those papers then have access to the extensive reporting and analysis of public affairs, which in turn keeps them well informed and able to participate in the democratic purpose. So, if this rhetoric is to be believed it would seem that the publication of people's sordid sex lives is central, nay crucial, to the democratic process - there's logic for you. Nice try Mr Dacre. However, this lady is not for turning. You talk utter nonsense. Bah...
2 comments:
Good stuff... have noted your views on Insitelaw for tomorrow. Quite right!
M'dear a worthy cause for which to revive our modest blog...
In the spirit of self-interest that has appeared to dominate this debate, I would like to see this decision go up to get some further pronouncements on the balancing exercise you so eloquently articulate.
Gutter press: RIP...!
Post a Comment