On Privacy, ch. 2: 'Privacy, Freedom of Expression and the Media'

2018

1.2 We show how British journalism does a poor job in promoting the right to privacy, especially given its demonstrable preference for a counter-narrative promoted by the intelligence elite on the importance of surveillance for national security. To explain this, we draw on published academic work on the 2013 leaks by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, Edward Snowden, on mass surveillance.

The Northern Ireland legal quarterly, 2013

Although it has received less coverage than the Leveson Inquiry, the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, chaired by John Whittingdale MP (the Whittingdale Committee) has also investigated media freedom recently, focusing particularly on the impact of developments in privacy law. Consistent with its quiet performance, it may be said that the Whittingdale Committee’s chief findings are relatively mundane, amounting to little more than a gloss on rubber-stamping common law developments. Whilst this may no doubt disappoint certain sections of the press, it is also disappointing from a legal commentary perspective, particularly for its treatment of public interest. For, although the Whittingdale Committee recognises the problematic nature of identifying this quality with precision, it does remarkably little to address it. Arguably, the imperative for deeper discussion has been provided by a discernible liberal shift in judicial reasoning in recent privacy cases whereby unauthoris...

1982

Bedause of judicial indifference and legislative inaction, the Conilict"between the right of privacy and'the freedom of the press is no closei to a resolution than it was a century ago. William Prossee's reduction of the common law of privacy into four separate torts has not solved'the problem. The doncept of "newsworthiness" has not been helpful either because the judiciary has neither advanced nor adopted a unifiedAtheory of the news. -Effortd to link privacy-'to community mores have been misdirected, stressing the community's:right to shield itself from indecency instead of the individual's autonoiny and dignity, arid failing to discriminate between variOus types of privacy. Privacy should be treafed as a value worthy of its own status, as a matter of human dignity and a requisite for a democratic society. Since prior restraint would be too destr.uctive'to freedom of the press, the goal of,privacy law must be to prevent its further ahuse. A four-part test can be used to balance.the plaintiff's and defendant's responsibilities in a privacy action. The plaintiff must show that the disclosed facts are truly private and that their publication was sufficiently embarrassing to result in a loss of dighity; the defendant must explain why clisclosure was "in the public interest" 'and thus privileged and why it was necessary to reveal the plaintiff's identity. (JL) wea,

papers.ssrn.com

The given article represents a custom view on the collision between two fundamental human rights – the freedom of epxression and right to privacy. Such is reconcilled by means of adopting general rules in cases with similar circumstances both in common law jurisdictions and international courts. However, the matter of the origin of the abovesaid clash has never been clearly determined mainly owing to the fact that the right to privacy has got a relatively recent recognition although privacy issues have been discussed in dozens, if not hundreds of cases occuring some decades priorly to its official launch. Therefore, there is a necessity to determine whether its encounter has a precedential, or more plainly, a civilizational aetiology. Upon the view expressed in the paper, such is precedential.

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000

Nobody likes to be talked about but everybody likes to talk. Trying to stop the dissemination of private information is, however, an impingement on free expression and the freedom to observe.

Anatoliy A. Lytvynenko, The origins of privacy and freedom of press collision: precedential, or civilizational? Denis v. Leclerc, Wetmore v. Scovell & Smith v. Higgins et al. (2018), Science Review: Legal and Political Sciences, Vol. 2 (June. 2018); No. (5) 12, p.p. 51-56, 2018

The given article represents a custom view on the collision between two fundamental human rights – the freedom of epxression and right to privacy. Such is reconcilled by means of adopting general rules in cases with similar circumstances both in common law jurisdictions and international courts. However, the matter of the origin of the abovesaid clash has never been clearly determined mainly owing to the fact that the right to privacy has got a relatively recent recognition although privacy issues have been discussed in dozens, if not hundreds of cases occuring some decades priorly to its official launch. Therefore, there is a necessity to determine whether its encounter has a precedential, or more plainly, a civilizational aetiology. Upon the view expressed in the paper, such is precedential

International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2021

The article is devoted to the problem of ensuring balance in the realization of two fundamental human rights and freedoms in a democratic society-the right to freedom of speech and privacy. It has been concluded that the rights to freedom of speech and privacy are recognized as fundamental human rights that do not conflict with each other but are intangible, inherent in every person. The right to freedom of journalism is a continuation of the right to freedom of speech and information and consists in the collection, storage, and dissemination of socially important information through the mass media. The usage of the rights in question, including in the mass media actions, may not be grounds for restricting or violating the right of everyone to privacy, the confidentiality of correspondence, correspondence, telephone conversations, and entails criminal liability in cases provided by law. In the public interest, the law provides grounds for exempting a journalist from criminal liability for disclosing confidential information, in particular in the case of disclosure of information of public interest or has already been published in other media, or concerns officials of public authorities.