The rights of privacy vs. the rights to freedom of expression.
‘The Max Mosley’ case could become a standard for celebrities to fight more strongly in defense of their private lives against the press to decrease the press freedom. The emerging law of privacy is the weapon when celebs or business personalities battle it out at the high court to prevent (or punish) the publication of some media stories.
If Mosley wins, the judge could set a significant standard by making a massive award of exemplary or punitive damages against the publishers of the News of the World. It could be an amount of hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds. In the Mosley case, it is about a story that the News of the World wanted to publish, but didn’t warn Mosley himself. If the court decide to punish such behavior, the press would have a hard time to publish such stories in the future.
The general damages (the normal measure of damages) are used to protect the feelings of the claimant caused by publishing private information. Naomi Campbell received £2,500 general damages after the Sunday Mirror published that she was considering to go to Narcotics Anonymous and she received an additional £1,000 because she suffered (additional distress). Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones received £3,750 each because Hello! Magazine published photos of their wedding. Loreena McKennit, a Canadian folk singer, received £5,000 damages (by the same judge who is now the judge in the Mosley case) for infringement of privacy after the publication of an unauthorized biography.
It is open to the judge to decide if the behavior of the News of the World is unacceptable and whether they didn’t warn Mosley was on purpose. If the court would say that the media are forced to tell individuals about their publications, it would be an intrusion into press freedom. Freedom of speech will continue to play a big part in the emerging law of privacy.
I think that the judge can do what she or he wants, but she or he can’t go to far. The law of privacy is often abused in cases such like this. It is easy to say that you are injured because of the publication of the story if you know you can receive a massive award for it. Look at Naomi Campbell, just because she said she suffered from additional distress, she received £1,000 more.. You can argue about that. I don’t say that the media can do everything. There are limits, but they also have freedom. They always have to be careful when they publish a story. If the person where the story is about, is not aware of the intention of publishing a story about him, the chance exist that the newspaper have to appear to court and have to pay a lot of money.
Daphné V.E.
On one hand I agree with Daphné's opninion but on the other hand I have my own opinion about this. I think that the media sometimes publishes stories without knowing if they are true or not. So they have to ask permission to people if they want to publish their stories. Maybe the media has to get less freedom and people more freedom.
BeantwoordenVerwijderenLike Lisa, I have also 2 opninions. Media , like newspapers, are a real obstacle for celebs in Amerika. They would do anything to get a picture of a celeb or to know some gossips about another celeb, even knowing they are true or not. It must be very tough to live in a situation like that. But on the other hand, I think, sometimes celebs abuse the situation and get big awards in a court for this. Indeed, like Lisa said, the media has to get less freedom and people more freedom. But how are we going to do that?
BeantwoordenVerwijderen