Public Laws on Privacy and Infringement of Rights - Essay Example

Public Laws on Privacy and Infringement of Rights Name Institution Public Laws on Privacy and Infringement of Rights Privacy is one of the most important human rights recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, international and regional treaties, and International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Besides, privacy also underpins human dignity and other important values like the freedom of association and speech. However, in the modern age, infringement of privacy is becoming an important human rights issue. It is important to note that there is no express right to privacy under English laws, which makes it difficult to take civil action for any purported breach of the rights. With regard to the Privacy and Human Rights Act of 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights in UK law requires every person to have the right to respect for the privacy, family life, home, and correspondences as outlined in Article 8(1). By publishing Rhys’s image and that of the daughter was complete infringement of his rights and that of the family since the newspaper should have sought his consent before resorting to publication. However, the right to privacy is subject to some qualifications as outlined in the Article 8(2) of the Convention. Therefore, both the Act and the Convention confer people the right to respect, private life, and outlines several reasons why the public authority can interfere with such right. Most people argue that such provisions are tantamount; however, the England courts rejected such notions. In the case of Peck v the United Kingdom that occurred in 2003, the European Court of Human Rights acknowledged that even with the filming of the defendant in the street, he was not in such area to participate in the public event, which was a violation of the rights under Article 8. Even though the plentiful in the case argued successfully, the result exposed several gaps in domestic privacy protection covered under Regulation of Investigatory Power Act of 2000. Moreover, the case highlighted English law still lack the adequacy to cover the invasions of privacy by capturing the images. However, from the case of Wainwright v Home Office, the House of the Lords under the English law found that there was no cause of actions for the invasion of privacy. From the court’s perspective, Article 8 of Convention creates no such cause of action. The major issue involving the privacy cases is the interpretation of the Convention. Nonetheless, the central concern of the European Court of Justice is whether the legal framework in the UK provides enough remedy in situations where there is the invasion of privacy in Article 8(1) that is unjustified under Article 8(2) of the Convention. Although the Cowbridge Echo, the local newspaper that published the article, intends to defend the claim, that it did not infringe any right by publishing the prevailing scenario. Having an insight into Wainwright’s case, it was clear that no cause of action cause of action for privacy invasion occurred which most legal practitioners observed as the primary influence of Article 8 of the Convention. The case led to the broadening of the scope of the cause of action for breaching confidence, misuse of private information. Initially, it was crucial that the claimant establishes that there was the confidential connection between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to bring the claims associated with the breach of confidence. On the contrary, bringing the claim related to misuse of the confidential information, the claimant only had to establish the fact that he/she had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the information issue. There is no relevance of the relationship with the defendant. For example, in the case of John Terry against the unknown persons, he applied for an injunction restraining the publication of some details regarding his romantic life. In the case, the judge failed to prohibit the publication citing that that there were no actual risks that might have infringed into Mr Terry’s relationship. Such scenario would have been since the publication might have led to misuse of confidential information that Mr Terry had the reasonable expectation of privacy. It did not matter that that there was no confidential relationship with the publishers. Therefore, the development of the cause of action for misusing confidential information began resembling the right to privacy. The cases, however, illustrates that while enforcing the privacy rights, it is crucial that the court balances against the right of others since even the newspapers have the freedom of expression as stated in Article 10 of the Convention. Privacy relates to one's state of being. Therefore, it helps to retain one’s personal dignity. According to Feldman’s argument, releasing people’s private information with impunity might have effects of illegitimately that constraints the choices of the people with regard to individual behaviour with interferes with their autonomy. In Wales, people have the right to express their opinions since the law permits the freedom of expression, which Rhys Evans properly utilized. However, the newspaper regarded Rhys’s campaign against the church schools as being hypocritical since the daughter was in one of such schools, a scenario that triggered them to publish the article. The information might have been in the interests of the public; however, publishing the daughter’s photograph alongside his was a complete violation and infringement of his private and family life. Privacy is important to human flourishing. Nonetheless, it is difficult to evaluate and define privacy making it important for the court to strike balance in cases involving privacy infringement. Considering the very nature of the politics, there is much demand for the robust protection for the freedom of expression. On the contrary, the cases involving the newspapers with individuals like the case of Murray vs. Express Newspaper or the Campbell vs. Mirror Group Newspaper that makes it difficult for the press to purport under Article 10 that the information they convey is in the interest of the public. Freedom of expression is the strength of the English democracy and significant to the press. With the increasing idea that the freedom to engage in free expression and forward ideas and opinions within the media fraternity is important for human development is the main theory of the media and it is important for democracy. The idea is true; nonetheless, the current journalism profession proves to become consistently intrusive and free speech defence ever less plausible. It is ostensible that the both the mutually supportive and conflicting Convention rights, there is need for a balance between Article 8 and Article 10 and close examination of specific cases. These cases include the right to respect for people’s private life, home and correspondence that the judges often overlook. For example, in the case of Venacles & Thompson v New Group Newspaper, it was evident that the judge gave unequal weight with much favour falling on Article 10. From the judges’ statement that he could only restrict the freedom of the media to publish the information with an exception of those set in Article 10(2), it is clear that some aspects of the convention were overlooked. In addition, the statement highlights that judge did not look into the case in parallel context with regard to equal rights by supporting Fenwick and Philipson’s idea “striking asymmetry.” As per Fenwick and Philipson, issues associated with public interest are often obfuscating instead of clarifying the underlying privacy issues. Besides, the rationalization of the Article 10 majorly favours the press, which makes celebrities merciless at the hands of the media. Generally, the freedom of expression and privacy are always in conflict. However, privacy is significant for the freedom of expression. For the politicians like Rhys Evans, who is a Member of the National Assembly, privacy is an important aspect since other competitors could use the infringed information to lay their political foundation. People are keen on the activities carried out by the politicians including the opponents who look for weaknesses. Exposing the underlying activities and matters advocated for by Rhys portrayed him as a hypocrite, which could deter his political ambitions. It is important that the media understand their rights while publishing their rights. As politician, Rhys handles sensitive matters that he might not require their disclosure. It is difficult to resolve the conflicts associated with privacy and freedom of speech. The law cannot protect both the rights when the cases arise. To address such conflicts, the court systems asses the value of the speech in the case and make a comparison with the privacy that the judge could sacrifice if the freedom of expression is prioritized over it. Moreover, if the outlined issue or newspaper publication contributes to crucial political debate and does not infringe on the individual private life, then the freedom of expression should win over the privacy. On the contrary, if the articles reveal individual private life, then the privacy should win since it is not easy to see ways in which disclosing such information contribute to a crucial public debate. By disclosing his daughter, although, in a blurred image, the media infringed into Rhys’s personal life. From the legal point, Articles 10 of Freedom of Expression clearly outlines circumstances under which the media could publicise individuals’ personal life. Each person has the right to freedom of expression that include freedom of holding, receiving, and imparting the information without the inference by the public authority irrespective of the frontiers. However, the Article does not prevent that State from requiring the broadcasting license. For example, in the case involving The Guardian and The Observer newspaper v the United Kingdom in 1991, the media firm published few excerpts withdrawn from Peter Wright’s book, Spycatcher that had materials alleging that M15 performed several unlawful activities (ECHR 2008). To an advantage, the government succeeded and obtained an injunction to prevent further publication of the material until the conclusion of the proceedings related to the breach of confidence. According to the argument from The Guardian, offering an injunction to the state was an infringement of the right of expression as outlined in Article 10. However, The European Court of Human Rights cited that even though the injunction was within the legal framework, it was in the interest of the national security that upon the completion of book publication, there were sufficient reasons to continue banning the publication. Therefore, the court should have discharged the injunction once the information became non-confidential. The right to expression is substantial for the media fraternity. Therefore, they have to feel free to criticize any individual or the state without any fear of prosecution as an important feature of any democratic society. Although democracy allows the media to express matter they deem to be crucial to people, they need to bear in mind other factors associated with human rights like the right respect the private lives of others. In addition, the law also permits the freedom of people to receive information. References Article 19. (2008, February 18). ECHR: The Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3110/en/echr:-the- observer-and-guardian-v.-the-united-kingdom Equality and Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Freedom of expression | Equality and Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/human-rights/what-are-human- rights%3F/the-human-rights-act/freedom-of-expression Prowda, J. B. (2013). Visual arts and the law: A handbook for professionals. Surrey, U.K: Lund Humphries in association with Sotheby's Institute of Art. Scheb, J. M., & Scheb, J. M. (2011). Criminal law and procedure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Swarbrick. (2015, June 30). Venables and Thompson -v- News Group Newspapers and others; QBD 8 Jan 2001. Retrieved from http://swarb.co.uk/venables-and-thompson- v-news-group-newspapers-and-others-qbd-8-jan-2001-3/ Read More