Dominic Lawson: In the Twitter era, privacy is finished

The Facebook generation are infinitely less sympathetic than the average High Court judge

Share
Related Topics

As the late Frankie Howerd didn't quite say: Twitter ye not. Or at least, don't use the Twitter networking website to out sundry sportsmen and showbusiness types who have taken out so-called super-injunctions banning all public mention of their extramarital affairs. The person who posted these names on his Twitter account yesterday – whether inaccurately or not – is clearly in contempt of court, and therefore liable to a substantial fine.

If this newspaper had published a piece by a journalist naming those names, then it, rather than the writer, would have borne the brunt of any subsequent costs and proceedings. Not so the executives of Twitter, apparently. It warns anyone joining its online forum that "you may use the Services only in compliance with ... all applicable local, state, national, and international laws, rules and regulations". But you're on your own in the dock, delinquent Tweeters: the owners of the website go on to assert that "we may not monitor ... the Content posted via the Services and we cannot take responsibility for such Content". When Stanley Baldwin eighty years ago attacked the proprietors of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express for seeking "power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages" he cannot have envisaged a day when a publisher would so explicitly broadcast its lack of responsibility for whatever appeared under its banner.

Naturally Twitter, and such other internet service providers as Google and Facebook, are not like newspapers in seeking directly to influence public opinion; more to the point, their whole business model rests on the fact that they don't control what their users post. Not only would this destroy the freedom and spontaneity their users relish; pre-moderation would require the employment of thousands of lawyers around the clock.

Still more to the point, the whole idea of super-injunctions designed to protect privacy is diametrically opposed to the ethos of the Facebook generation, who are infinitely less sympathetic than the average High Court judge to the notion that there are some limits to the amount of personal details that should be made publicly available. Those judges, it should be said, are not imposing such limits on publishers purely on a whim, or out of a class-based desire to protect "the establishment" from the exposure of its wrongdoing. It is not establishment figures who have been the most assiduous seekers of super-injunctions (so far as we know) but footballers, a group of people who might be very welcome at Chinawhite nightclub in Soho, but would never be admitted to White's Club in St James's.

No, the judges have just been trying to interpret the law as it stands; and since the Human Rights Act of 1998 incorporated the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law, that has included a legal right to privacy. Article 8 of the HRA declares that "Everybody has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." When arguing against a claim under Article 8, newspapers can claim their own rights under Article 10 of the Act which declares that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information." Unfortunately for the media, however, the second paragraph of Article 10 stipulates that this right "carries with it duties and responsibilities ... as are necessary for the protection of the reputation or rights of others." I suspect it is this clause which has influenced judges to side more with those seeking super-injunctions (that is, injunctions which forbid even the mention of the fact that they exist) than with the sort of newspapers whose bread and butter has long been the exposure of the sexual indiscretions of those in the public eye.

Ever sensitive to the requirements of newspaper editors (not to mention the need to capture the headlines himself) David Cameron last month declared himself "uneasy" at the way judges had been developing a form of privacy law; he added that Parliament should have its say and MPs, rather than the judiciary, should decide the balance between the right to privacy and the freedom of the press. This was most disingenuous of the Prime Minister. First, it was Parliament which passed the Human Rights Act. It was not imposed by the judiciary. Second, whatever new legislation may be proposed to supplant it would presumably incorporate some rights to a private life as well as freedom of expression; and thereafter it would remain the role of judges to arbitrate a balance between the two requirements. No parliamentary draftsman could draw up a law which would obviate the need for judicial interpretation.

It is already the case that a newspaper can persuade a judge not to grant an injunction, if the story it wishes to publish is "in the public interest". In this regard, the privacy law is, however, more onerous than that covering defamation. In the latter case, it is not necessary to prove the public interest: truth is an absolute defence. In privacy cases, the problem for the subject of the story is precisely that it is true. Unfortunately for those seeking clarity, the notion of the "public interest" is, at best, highly subjective.

Judges, though, have been clear that under no definition can it automatically be said to be in the public interest to reveal that footballer X has been paying for sex with a prostitute – and I think they are right in that, at least. However, the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, made a notable contribution to this debate in 2008, when he suggested that "public shaming has always been a vital element in defending the parameters of what are considered acceptable standards of behaviour". This is as close as anyone has come to a general public interest defence of what we might collectively term "kiss and tell" stories.

No judge would ever dare to say it, but there is in fact a diametrically opposed public interest defence for not printing such stories, one which would be more easily understood by the Victorians – or even Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s; it is that revelations of sexual infidelity by public figures have the effect of making readers more likely to emulate such behaviour than to shun it. After all, the people whom the press have in their sights are what we now call "role models". So if Premiership footballers are exposed as being sexually incontinent in their private lives, those young men who admire them, far from shunning the players, will instead be more likely to emulate such behaviour. In other words, the sanitised public image of the clean-living sports star – as portrayed in the pages of such heroically uncritical publications as Hello! – is more socially useful in its subliminal influence than the scoop which exposes his hypocrisy.

For better or for worse, such an approach is no longer sustainable. Thanks to the internet and the mobile phone camera we are now in a world of complete transparency. Whatever the judges do, privacy has had its day. None of us is safe.



d.lawson@independent.co.uk

React Now

Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
iJobs Job Widget
iJobs General

Recruitment Genius: Business Manager

£32000 - £40000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: A Business Manager is required ...

Recruitment Genius: Operations Manager

£45000 - £55000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: This is an exciting opportunity...

Recruitment Genius: Panel & Cabinet Wireman

£20000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: Panel Wireman required for small electro...

Recruitment Genius: Electronics Test Engineer

£25000 - £27000 per annum: Recruitment Genius: An SME based in East Cheshire, ...

Day In a Page

Read Next
Newspaper stands have been criticised by the Child Eyes campaign  

There were more reader complaints this year – but, then again, there were more readers

Will Gore
 

People drink to shut out pain and stress. Arresting them won’t help

Deborah Coughlin
A timely reminder of the bloody anniversary we all forgot

A timely reminder of the bloody anniversary we all forgot

Who remembers that this week we enter the 150th anniversary year of the end of the American Civil War, asks Robert Fisk
Homeless Veterans appeal: Former soldiers pay their respects to a friend who also served

Homeless Veterans appeal

Former soldiers pay their respects to a friend who also served
Downfall of Dustin 'Screech' Diamond, the 'Saved By The Bell' star charged with bar stabbing

Scarred by the bell

The downfall of the TV star charged with bar stabbing
Why 2014 was a year of technological let-downs

Why 2014 was a year of technological let-downs

Security breaches and overhyped start-ups dominated a year in which very little changed (save the size of your phone)
Cuba's golf revolution: But will the revolutionary nation take 'bourgeois' game to its heart?

Will revolutionary Cuba take 'bourgeois' golf to its heart?

Fidel Castro ridiculed the game – but now investment in leisure resort projects is welcome
The Locked Room Mysteries: As a new collection of the genre’s best is published, its editor Otto Penzler explains the rules of engagement

The Locked Room Mysteries

As a new collection of the genre’s best is published, its editor explains the rules of engagement
Amy Adams on playing painter Margaret Keane in Tim Burton's Big Eyes

How I made myself Keane

Amy Adams hadn’t wanted to take the role of artist Margaret Keane, because she’d had enough of playing victims. But then she had a daughter, and saw the painter in a new light
Ed Richards: Parting view of Ofcom chief. . . we hate jokes on the disabled

Parting view of Ofcom chief... we hate jokes on the disabled

Bad language once got TV viewers irate, inciting calls to broadcasting switchboards. But now there is a worse offender, says retiring head of the media watchdog, Ed Richards
A look back at fashion in 2014: Wear in review

Wear in review

A look back at fashion in 2014
Ian Herbert: My 10 hopes for sport in 2015. Might just one of them happen?

Ian Herbert: My 10 hopes for sport in 2015

Might just one of them happen?
War with Isis: The West needs more than a White Knight

The West needs more than a White Knight

Despite billions spent on weapons, the US has not been able to counter Isis's gruesome tactics, says Patrick Cockburn
Return to Helmand: Private Davey Graham recalls the day he was shot by the Taliban

'The day I was shot by the Taliban'

Private Davey Graham was shot five times during an ambush in 2007 - it was the first, controversial photograph to show the dangers our soldiers faced in Helmand province
Revealed: the best and worst airlines for delays

Revealed: the best and worst airlines for delays

Many flyers are failing to claim compensation to which they are entitled, a new survey has found
The stories that defined 2014: From the Scottish independence referendum to the Ice Bucket Challenge, our writers voice their opinions

The stories that defined 2014

From the Scottish independence referendum to the Ice Bucket Challenge, our writers voice their opinions
Stoke-on-Trent becomes first British city to be classified as 'disaster resilient' by the United Nations

Disaster looming? Now you know where to head...

Which British city has become the first to be awarded special 'resilience' status by the UN?