Until recently, the French press has been particularly timid in revealing information about politicians, even where it would have been in the public interest. If the judges start handing out large sums, it could have a big deterrent effect on the media.
But there is another twist to the law. The Human Rights Act gives them the right to be left alone, free from media prying, they say.
The European Convention contains specific provisions that identify human dignity as a paramount value. But the point that raised the privacy issue came from the Douglases personally.
To listen to an interview with Barnes, click here: Why throw every athlete, actor, and musician into the same pot? In Germany, with its relatively recent experience of dictatorship, the right to free speech is treated with particular reverence. By contrast, in France, a magazine that published those pictures not only had to pay the duchess damages for infringing her privacy but was punished in the criminal courts with a fine.
In one case, the court had to decide whether or not photos taken of Princess Caroline of Monaco in a restaurant were a breach of her privacy.
On one side of the argument, the pics were taken, without her knowledge or consent, when she was on a private holiday in France, staying in a private villa, by a paparazzo using a long-lens camera from an adjoining property. Is this the kind of balancing act that our judges will have to perform each time a case comes before them alleging an invasion of privacy?
We now have a privacy law. It is generally accepted that crooked businessmen and dodgy politicians are more easily able to escape scrutiny because of the deterrent effect of privacy laws. Share via Email So now we know. Ideally, however, Barnes would like to put the book in the hands of the people she wants to read it — namely, she says, every judge on the federal circuit.
But a little way further is Article 10, which guarantees the freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The French privacy laws have also had a chilling effect in an area that worries the British media - the investigation of wrongdoing and corruption.
Would Diana, Princess of Wales have succeeded in banning the photos of her working out in the gym if there had been a privacy law? It also shows how it can be done on the basis of logical criteria, rather than by relying on accidents of history and litigation, which is how English law in this area developed in the past.
The Price of Fame: Our judges have said so. If a similar case were to come before an English court today, would she be able to stop such photos being published? By retaining that editorial control, they were in effect saying that any pictures other than those personally chosen by them invaded their privacy.
In France, celebrities - Catherine Deneuve, Isabelle Adjani and Brigitte Bardot among them - are used to going to court to complain that photographs have been taken of them without their consent, but the line between private and public occasions has often proved hard to draw.
Put simply, if she and her companion chose a secluded table well inside the restaurant, not easily seen from the street, the message was: Would she have won? The right to privacy arises because Britain has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into our national laws.
Everyone working at the wedding signed a draconian contract promising not to take snaps, on pain of unimaginable legal consequences if they disobeyed. Article 8 says that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life". That still leaves the judges with a sensitive balancing act to perform, and it is by no means clear which way they will turn when faced with a free speech-versus-media intrusion dilemma.
There is such a thing as a legal right to privacy. The judges, citing our new Human Rights Act, agreed. The Human Rights Act exhorts the judges to have particular regard to freedom of expression when deciding which way to rule, and gives the media a public-interest defence against anyone trying to stop them from publishing.
In her book, Outrageous Invasions:But celebrities don’t really consent to losing their privacy. That gives it a false sense of legitimacy. There’s no contract that says that in order to be famous one has to surrender privacy.
When a person becomes a celebrity that person does not want to give up their right to privacy, it is the star crazy fans that force reporters to dive into celebrities' private lives and uncover their deepest darkest secrets, not because people care about the celebrity put because it is entertaining.
Celebrities should have their right to privacy due to historical/practical rights, their invasion of privacy with paparazzi, and their children’s rights to privacy.
They are ordinary people just with a. Berry has said she considers passing a bill protecting the privacy of the children of public figures one of her proudest accomplishments. "These are little innocent children who didn't ask to be celebrities," she said inwhile testifying that photographers had taunted her daughter Nahla.
Paparazzi argue that the nature of celebrities’ jobs is construed as waiving their rights to privacy. However, this waiver should be regarded as a limited waiver, restricting the press to examine and exposing only that information that has some bearing on the individual’s position in society.
Its not very popular to be a celebrity anymore since you don't get any privacy . & the public thinks you loose your privacy status because you are privileged to be a celebrity .
People don't realize its a job with appointments & schedules celebrities should have .Download