On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:51:23 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:30:52 -0400, Mike Ross
>wrote:
>>"In a case brought on behalf of their son, David Murray, JK Rowling and her
>>husband argued that the taking and publication of photos of them on the street
>>breached David's privacy. They have won the right to a full trial in the Court
>>of Appeal after a High Court ruling that they did not have a strong enough case
>>for a trial was overturned."
>>
>>So we're only dealing with a ruling that the case can go forward to trial;
>>there's no final judgement to worry about just yet. That hadn't been clear to me
>>from earlier comments.
>True in this case, but there has been a final judgment in the Naomi
>Campbell case, and that is the main one being quoted as precedent
>here.
Aye, the Campbell case invented the notion that anyone engaged in a 'sensitive'
or 'embarassing' activity, such as going to a therapy session for drug
addiction, had some kind of expectation of 'privacy', even on a public street.
The present case seems to be about extending that to ANY activities, even normal
ones like going out for a walk.
Presumably the Campbell case would have a 'public interest' test; whilst the
argument was accepted that Campbell deserved some privacy, it would be quite a
different matter if the person visiting the therapist was a politician who had
pontificated against drugs, for instance?
I also wonder what the *point* is - all that will happen in the future is that
papers will report 'we have photos of celebrity X (or even just 'we observed
celebrity X') going to such-and-such a place, but we're not allowed to publish
them in the UK'. Seems somewhat pointless. Or have I misunderstood the Campbell
case; did the judgement say the photography itself was forbidden, or just the
publication?
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |