Do Celebrities have a right to privacy?

In the UK this week the Supreme Court upheld an injunction brought before the court by a 'celebrity couple' which prevents any newspaper in England and Wales and social media feeds from identifying the people involved in what it alleged to be a story of a sexual nature. The identities are already known to some through publication in Scotland and other countries, but the Court ruled that the free availability of the story in itself did not undermine the law of England in this case.
Joshua Rozenberg in The Guardian reports that the majority opinion of the judges
said there was no public interest in publishing kiss-and-tell stories, however much they might interest some members of the public and even if they involved infidelity or multiple encounters.
He also reports a view of one of the judges that
commercial pressures to publish salacious gossip must not drive newspapers to violate proper standards of journalism
And one notes that the newspaper which wants to publish the story is Rupert Murdoch's The Sun on Sunday, in other words a newspaper belonging to a firm that has broken the law on numerous occasions to publish 'stories' and whose journalists have been sent to gaol because of it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ndermining-law

If celebrities -pop singers, politicians, people from the world of film, tv, sport and so on- have not broken the law who needs to know if one or more of the people in a relationship have an affair or take photos or videos of themselves in the nude or engaged in sexual intercourse? Hulk Hogan successfully sued Gawker for publishing a video of him engaged in sexual intercourse, who was in the right and who was in the wrong?

Does your opinion of one of these or all celebrities change if you find out they have been unfaithful to their spouse?

I have noted in HungAngels a belief, almost a demand, that private facts about named individuals become public knowledge. At what point does a person's private life become public knowledge?

Yes, they have a right to privacy.

Unless ->I<- want to know about it :p

Everyone has a right to privacy, just as everyone should be judged innocent until proven guilty.

However, it's hard to sympathise with many of today's so-called celebrities who appear happy to air their dirty laundry, sex tapes, etc when it suits them for publicity reasons but go running to the courts crying foul when it doesn't.

Does anyone (not just celebs) have a right to privacy?
I dunno! :shrug

But it seems to me, if you're doing something you don't want anyone else to know about, either don't do it, or hide it better. You've got to take a little bit of responsibility for your actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

Everyone has a right to privacy, just as everyone should be judged innocent until proven guilty.

However, it's hard to sympathise with many of today's so-called celebrities who appear happy to air their dirty laundry, sex tapes, etc when it suits them for publicity reasons but go running to the courts crying foul when it doesn't.

---

This is a weak argument, because it assumes that all celebrities should receive the same treatment as each other with no regard for anything other than somebody else's interest.
We can make a distinction between celebrities with a recognised achievement, for example Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney are both famous because of their work with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, rather than for their consumption of narcotics or their marriages. Someone who claims 'celebrity' status because they failed to win a game show on tv to my mind has less claim on my attention, indeed, none at all. Many celebrities are in the news because they not only have a new film, tv show, album to promote, but are contractually obliged to promote the product, so that there is a difference between being 'seen in public' where this is part of a commercial transaction, and, for example, being seen shopping in the Mall with one's children. It is also not the case that films and photos taken in private are willingly 'leaked' to the media by the people concerned, as has been the case with Hulk Hogan and Jennifer Lawrence.
You have not demonstrated either a moral or a legal case for the disclosure of private material.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Does anyone (not just celebs) have a right to privacy?
I dunno! :shrug

But it seems to me, if you're doing something you don't want anyone else to know about, either don't do it, or hide it better. You've got to take a little bit of responsibility for your actions.

---

Too vague because it is not necessarily the case that celebrities court the publicity they receive. You need also to take into account predatory investigators working for journalists or the journalists themselves who are determined to find out what X does when they are in the privacy of their own home, by using long-range cameras, sifting through garbage, hacking into mobile phones, and so on. A celebrity may indeed be hiding an affair, but outside the immediate family members, who's business is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

This is a weak argument, because it assumes that all celebrities should receive the same treatment as each other with no regard for anything other than somebody else's interest.
We can make a distinction between celebrities with a recognised achievement, for example Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney are both famous because of their work with the Rolling Stones and the Beatles, rather than for their consumption of narcotics or their marriages. Someone who claims 'celebrity' status because they failed to win a game show on tv to my mind has less claim on my attention, indeed, none at all. Many celebrities are in the news because they not only have a new film, tv show, album to promote, but are contractually obliged to promote the product, so that there is a difference between being 'seen in public' where this is part of a commercial transaction, and, for example, being seen shopping in the Mall with one's children. It is also not the case that films and photos taken in private are willingly 'leaked' to the media by the people concerned, as has been the case with Hulk Hogan and Jennifer Lawrence.
You have not demonstrated either a moral or a legal case for the disclosure of private material.

---

That's because it was never intended to be an argument, just my own personal feeling.

However, in the interests of discussion, to take your example above, how many celebrities proudly display their newborn (or in some cases newly "acquired") children for the cameras before, quite rightly attempting to shield them from public attention while they are growing up? Those children have an absolute right to privacy but their parents should be well aware that once the media dogs have been set loose, they're like a dog with a bone and won't let go. Let loose the dogs of war at your peril... (Apologies for mixing metaphors somewhat.)

I have no intention of demonstrating a case for the disclosure of private material unless it is genuinely in the public interest to do so, as opposed to most celebrity scandals/news which are just of interest to (some of) the public.

The waste of time, money and effort spent on useless Freedom of Information requests in the UK is proof enough that there are some things that you just don't need to know...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-9673108.html

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/freedom-of...ght-silly.html

Of course! everyone has the right of privacy, they are a kind of people too.....lol :rolleyes:

ask that ? to yourself. dont you have a right to privacy?

Of course they have a right, and the argument "Well they court it when they want it" simply doesn't wash and here's why. If you take someone out for a date, and it goes well, and you get it on and make love at their place afterwards, does that give you the right to go round to their place and demand sex at any time on the basis that they've done it with you before? Even if they say yes a couple of times, but no more often than not, it would still be rape if you forced them.

IMO - and those are three very crucial words, don't forget - it's the same thing. Just because a sleb courts publicity for their new record/film/book/tv show/whatever today does not give the papers the automatic right to stomp into their lives and demand to know whatever they want whenever they want.

Similarly, in my view, the argument that slebs like Macca or the Jag are more deserving of their privacy because of their achievements simply leads to arguments about what constitutes an 'achievement.'

That's fascinating on the UK perspective. in the united states with the legal concept of public figure, newsworthy and information found within the public which alters our view on information provided to the public. However, they only won the injunction, which temporarily prevents the release of the information until trial. I wish I knew more on the English legal theory, but I suspect the newspapers will win in the end. The injunction does not change or alters the newspapers ability to report celebrity news. I am sure they narrowed the scope of it of the determination for the injunction and limited it for very unique circumstances. Still the newspaper is going to spin it as an affront on the ability to publish information.

If a person uses their celebrity to promote a social policy which conflicts with their own lifestyle or their own private actions, then I think the public has a right to know. A TV evangelist, for example, who preaches abstinence or against homosexuality yet who engages in just those activities he's against should be called out for his hypocrisy.

mostly I agree everybody has a right to privacy, but if you use your celebrity or your authority in the public domain outside the normal range of your job, then to that extent you are inviting a commensurate amount of scrutiny.

I think whatever scrutiny you are given should be relevant to and commensurate with your public positions.

I think people who intentionally seek the limelight and weigh in on public disputes have a reduced expectation of privacy. The injunction seems to be aimed at salacious gossip but I don't think the government should be making decisions about what is important as much as whether the information is accurate and a fair portrayal. If it is not accurate, even the countries with the most liberal speech laws will allow defamation suits to proceed.

I think this kind of gossip probably has very little value and a significant cost to the affected parties, but more speech is supposed to have a remedial effect. I would support limitations on the publication of information about the private lives of non-public figures or information obtained by spying or false or misleading information (distinguishing defamation from false light). I think that one of the costs of celebrity is some loss of privacy and with it fewer protections against intrusions that are deemed to be not in the public interest. I think in the U.S. we assume that almost anything true about a celebrity is in the public interest for first amendment purposes...it's probably not strictly true, but just a protection against the government deciding what is important and what is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I have noted in HungAngels a belief, almost a demand, that private facts about named individuals become public knowledge. At what point does a person's private life become public knowledge?

---

I think one distinction is in order though. If information is held private by certain parties who choose not to disclose, it should withstand attempts to uncover the information (demands to disclose, threats, and spying). But if someone has obtained the information because of a voluntary disclosure or because the party did not treat it as private initially, then I don't think further disclosure should be prevented.

"Hulk Hogan successfully sued Gawker for publishing a video of him engaged in sexual intercourse, who was in the right and who was in the wrong?":

Gawker was in the wrong. Publishing that video was not in the public's best interest. Despite people finding out about Hogan using the n-word.

"Does your opinion of one of these or all celebrities change if you find out they have been unfaithful to their spouse?"

No. I like celebrities because they are good and/or great actors, professional athletes, or musicians. Not because they appear to be good family men or women. If a celebrity has been unfaithful to their spouse, the only people they have to answer to are their respective spouses, families, and whatever god they prey to.

Now the only time we should care about people cheating on their spouses is when its a politician who is mantra is "family values'. Or as @trish put it:

"If a person uses their celebrity to promote a social policy which conflicts with their own lifestyle or their own private actions, then I think the public has a right to know. A TV evangelist, for example, who preaches abstinence or against homosexuality yet who engages in just those activities he's against should be called out for his hypocrisy."

In closing, I do think celebrities have a right to privacy. But at the same time they have to expect that in the world we live in its just not going to happen. That's why there should be boundaries as to how much of their privacy should be disclosed. There is the incidental disclosure, i.e. getting their pictures taken by the paparazzi. Then there are the parts of their lives that shouldn't be disclosed. Their medical history or anything that has to do with their children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Hulk Hogan successfully sued Gawker for publishing a video of him engaged in sexual intercourse, who was in the right and who was in the wrong?

---

We've found out what a jury said. We still have to find out what an appeals court says about whether the verdict is consistent with first amendment law.

Rather than respond to the individual posts above which make valid points, I prefer to make some general comments on what I have read.

1) Exposure -it is true that celebrities promote a book, a film, an album and so on, but in most cases they have a contractual obligation to do so, even if they would choose not to if free to make that choice. Robert de Niro for example is clearly uncomfortable in interviews, and if he were not promoting a film I think he would not do them, indeed I don't know if he has ever given interviews that were not tied to a product.
To the extent that a celebrity is engaged in a commercial transaction then they must accept the exposure, but does that mean the public need to know anything not related to the product on sale, such as the state of the person's marriage? The point that personal information does if they are promoting something they do not believe does not always work. For example, if a pacifist actor takes on the role of a serial killer it may be because he needed the job rather than that the fictional (or even real life) role conflicts with his belief. However, if a politician seeks election and campaigns in public for laws against homosexuality and abortion when he is himself gay and/or paid for an abortion, that is fair game, but relates to a matter of public rather than simply private interest, which is why all celebrities, and so-called 'celebrities' should not be placed in one basket.

2) There is another side to this. It is not the case that the degree of exposure celebrities we are familiar with has always been part of our lives as those old enough to know will recall when the salacious details of a celebrities' sex life was simply not reported, not in the UK anyway. If it had been, we would have known about Jimmy Savile in the 1960s and his career would have ended there and then.
A sea change took place in the 1960s and 1970s when 'the media' became a more powerful and extensive tool as more people owned a tv as well as radio and bought newspapers. In the UK Rupert Murdoch has been the driving force behind the 'dumbing down' of public culture, as surveys of his newspapers since he purchased The Sun in 1969 show that the volume of stories on figures in tv and sport focusing on their sexual behaviour increased year on year. But let us be clear about something here- Murdoch is a Conservative, not a liberal, so why are his papers so obsessed with reporting stories of sexual nature and why have reporters resorted to breaking the law to find stories about individuals that simple face-to-face interviewing will not reveal? Murdoch exposes the 'liberal' side of life in order to discredit it, because in spite of his own marriages and divorces, he believes family life is the core of human society and that this means a heterosexual family life, just as there are men and women and 'gender benders'.

A strong motive behind the 'scandalous' nature of the stories that now accompany celebrities is a moral crusade that focuses on sexual infidelity as morally wrong, on sexual deviancy from the 'norm' as morally wrong, on the consumption of narcotics and (in excess) alcohol as morally wrong. Abortion is morally wrong. This is not always about 'the truth' being reported in the news, but the news creating a story to make a political, or a moral point. Murdoch and people like him are not necessarily protectors of freedom of speech, but may be using freedom of speech to undermine your freedom. Celebrities are saps, tools to be used for a wider and more insidious campaign -or is there a reason why the Murdoch Press has not -so far- published any salacious gossip about Donald Trump?

3) Briefly on the differences between the US and the UK. In the UK freedom of speech was mostly a common law right with Courts deciding on individual cases, before the incorporation into UK law (in 199-eight of the European Convention on Human Rights which crucially, and unlike the US Constitution with Article 10 on Free Speech also contains provisions that protect the privacy of the individual. In the US the contradiction in US law is registered by the First Amendment which states Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, and the actions of both laws and courts which seek to abridge precisely that freedom. As a legal argument has put it
A moment’s reflection, however, shows that it would be impossible to comply with the First Amendment literally: “no law” abridging freedom of speech would mean no law preserving state secrets, no copyright protection and no confidentiality for medical records, for a start. Equally it would mean allowing the most outlandish libel and slander, wildly misleading advertising, and so on and so forth – to the point where no law abridging freedom of speech would effectively mean no law at all.
http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.u...nt-approaches/

In reality, freedom of speech can be used for the public good, and against it. When it comes to the celebrity issue, I think it has its limits on both sides, and that a degree of respect for the privacy of another person must be weighed into the judgement.

everybody does.

but then there's a distinction between being in the public eye, and then not about paparazzi coming to take photos or record on their iPhone at their house.

this UK celeb is currently in most of the UK papers as a happily married family man. so it should be exposed.
The other one big story in the UK is an actor who was fcuked by an escort with a strap on, again who presents himself as a happily married man
If it was you or me involved in these stories the media wouldn't bother but as it is someone who makes the money it is different
At the end of the day these injuctions have just increases the media hype about it. If there was no injunction the story would already be chip paper