Celebrities in the UK deserve a lesser right to privacy, critically analyze this statement

Under dictionary definition, a celebrity is “a famous person, especially in entertainment or sport”. This, thanks to the advances of social media, can now include anyone who has a talent for influencing or a lucky break by going viral. Celebrities and ordinary citizens are ruled under the same law within the UK legal system. However, there are numerous examples of either one being viewed as having a lesser right to privacy within modern day society. This essay will indulge into the statutory aspects of the right to privacy whilst comparing the different reasons for why a celebrity’s’ right to privacy is sometimes viewed as lesser than everyone else. These being mental health, past vs present views, social media and the remedies surrounding privacy protection. From a legislative standpoint, there is no direct right to privacy act for us in the UK, however there is the Equality Act made in 2010, which states “(1)A person harasses another if (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of (i) violating B’s dignity”. This is the same ruling for both celebrities and ordinary citizens however often ignored for those famous individuals within the UK as shown in the incidents of media harassment. Sadly, this being accepted as normal in the modern day can lead to the devastating end that TV presenter Caroline Flack faced when she took her own life in 2019. Although it is not proven, in the lead up to her death she was the face of numerous news tabloids hounding a mix of facts and lies around her divorce and potential domestic abuse trial to the public pressure which is believed by many to be the tipping point that lead to her death. However, from this, her family and friends have set up a petition for ‘Caroline’s law’ which has recently been brought to the government to make media harassment a criminal offence. Thanks to the sharing of the link around social media, the petition has been signed by more than 850, 000 people. Without media, this would not have had this reach and the positive impact surrounding mental health being a recognised issue instead of ignored as it has been in that past. Due to this, both celebrities and ordinary citizens are beginning to receive equal treatment when it comes to the spread of false information. This is one example of the developing positive attitudes towards getting equal respect for both celebrity’s and ordinary citizens’ right to privacy as “All manner of privacy law are at a tipping point. ” When looking at modern day celebrities and their rights to privacy, it is essential we investigate the roles of the modern-day media outlets and their influence on a persons connotations. With the growing recognition and knowledge surrounding mental health, media outlets and the stigma around them has an ever-developing negative reputation for being the cause of all things damaging. The growing use of social media has allowed the reputation of celebrities to often be damaged through false information and negative influence being spread which inevitable leads to a decline in celebrities mental welfare if they became the victim of rumours which lead to define them. Author, Rosen speaks about this in his book arguing that privacy, for both ordinary citizens and celebrities, “blocks the flow of information in order to avoid error and misrepresentation”. This leads to the question of, if we are all under the same legal standing, why is it only ordinary citizens we consider the wellbeing of when publishing negative stories for the world’s entertainment? For example, the infamously controversial news tabloid, The Sun, made, at the time, newly hired football player, Raheem Sterling, front page news titled ‘Life and Times of footie idiot Raheem Sterling’. Compare this to a regular citizen having someone else’s opinion on all their past issues posted online simply because of starting a new job would not be tolerated and would class as workplace harassment. Due to this, Sterling later voiced his own opinion saying, “You put another five young kids at my age in that position and treat them like that — I don’t think a lot of them will come out the other side mentally right. ” It is arguable that what was said in Sterling’s destructive article was all true information with photographic evidence to prove it so it shouldn’t be an issue. If only facts are printed, is the issue that they’ve been exposed or that they got caught out doing something morally wrong? Celebrities, especially footballers, have always been in the public eye and should accept this is part of the job along with the outrageous pay checks that follow so should make sure they don’t do anything they think would tarnish their brand. Whereas for us ordinary citizens, we couldn’t be expected to stand for negative publicity aimed at us as we don’t have the same luxuries that would overall improve balance out the positives and the negatives. Much like this, there has been a plethora of reasons why the way we view celebrities and the right to their privacy have drastically changed over time compared to the ordinary citizen, the main one being the development of the internet. “The web was conceived as a tool for researchers and academics to share information… It is estimated that the web contains at least 25. 21 billion pages on an estimated 110 million websites”. Due to the idea of the internet starting so small, it is only imaginable that there was once a time where those of higher positions in society had their rumoured secrets spread through simple word of mouth, identical to how ordinary citizens had their allegations shared around the community. But, over time, the two positions have grown further apart in how they are discussed thanks to the ever-developing social media. This gap between the two groups of society has led to a rising amount of threats to the right of privacy of famous people as supported by Tweed’s statement, “What is now abundantly clear is that the advances in technology serve to provide an abundant array of tools which pose a very concrete threat to modern day privacy. ” The gossip of a celerity is now allowed to be spread like wildfire where a notification can be sent directly to your screen within minutes of it being published and whatever statement appears is believed as fact. The spread of gossip between ordinary citizens, although in some extreme cases can be brought online, often stays as rumours spread through word of mouth where the power of dismissal is active, and a reputation can be saved within a single conversation to correct facts. On the contrary, this perception has been disproved by American lawyers, Warren and Brandeis, in their 1890 law review saying, “To occupy the indolent, column upon column is filled with idle gossip, which can only be procured by intrusion upon the domestic circle. ”. Despite this extract being from the US so cannot be taken and applied directly to the right to privacy in the UK, it was published in the late 1800s and proves that there has always been a demand from the general public for gossip surrounding celebrities which means there has always been a concerning disrespect for celebrities right to privacy when compared to the ordinary citizens within western society. Modern day citizens seem to allow the right to privacy of celebrities to be dismantled when the product of the violation is for entertainment purposes e. g. scandals. Arguably the most famous example of the demands of public interest causing the media to go too far in lessening a celebrity’s right to privacy, is the death of Princess Diana Spencer when a paparazzi pursuit turned fatal. Two months before the death, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) was created, this made stalking and/or harassment illegal with the consequence being “A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. ” Albeit, too late, the PHA only became the go to remedy against paparazzi and the media after the Princess’ death. The Princess, who had left the royal family at this stage was one of the most photographed people in the world both during and after her marriage and public opinion turned sour when people began blaming the British tabloids for their deadly harassment of the people’s princess. In fact, after the passing of Princess Diana in 1997, “the public mood turned against paparazzi and the media, and as a consequence, British tabloids the Sun and the Mirror recorded their lowest sales figures since 1962. ” Thus showing that although there has always been a difference between the attitudes to the right to privacy celebrities and ordinary citizens have, a change has occurred in recent years where the public have began to realise the effect their desire for gossip has on celebrities lives causing celebrities an ordinary citizens to have an equal right to privacy, not lesser. Ongoing, during the time of Diana’s death, lawyer, Howard Kennedy, made the statement of “Privacy only existed in places like a doctor’s surgery, a confessional, a marital bed or the death bed. ” This is a key quote in describing the level of privacy celebrities received in the past, being one of many critiques on how the British tabloids treat the right to privacy. The damages awarded within these violations can only go so far as the information published not only affecting, as mentioned previously, the mental anguish of a famous figure in the public eye but also the financial aspects of their life. Max Mosley, celebrity and victim of a News of the World article, also critiqued the British tabloids treatment of celebrities by saying, "A section of the British press has for many years repeatedly gone well beyond the bounds of civilized behaviour, routinely breaking the law, ignoring rules devised by the newspaper industry itself and adopting a bullying and dishonest approach to litigation. " His violation of the right to privacy was possibly the most famous cases due to the damages awarded. Mosley was awarded £60, 000 in his battle over violation of his human right to freedom of expression. Established in the case of Handyside v UK, the ECHR stated, ““freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man”, although over 40 years old, this statement is still applicable as without the expression of new ideas, there wouldn’t be the development our society shows today. Mosley’s lawsuit was the highest amount awarded as damages from an English court after videos and an article was posted of him attending a accused ‘nazi themed’ sex party. Mosley and the courts believed this was a reasonable amount due to the complete ruin of his reputation for him and his family. Mosley said, “once a story had been published, you could not "un-publish" it, and the damage had been done”. Although the obvious strain this rigmarole would have had on Mosley, the legal battle could not have included defamation as nothing published within the article was false. This meaning that what Mosley engaged in as a married man with fame was illegal and morally wrong. Mosley paid £2500 to engage in this sex party, along with cheating on his wife he also engaged in ‘nazi themed’ roleplay with video evidence. Although the accusation was denied raises worries of what can the media post if even the facts aren’t allowed? And would Mosley’s actions being rewarded so highly if he didn’t have such a status to defame in the first place. It’s possible if the same actions had been taken by an ordinary citizen, there wouldn’t have been such a positive outcome on the violation, instead an imprisonment for engaging in prostitution and promoting a racist political group meaning an inequality of right to privacy between ordinary citizens and celebrities. Unfortunately for future celebrity privacy violations, there has been an amendment causing the super-injunction to stop being granted by the courts. This was to prevent the reporting of a violation of privacy’s own existence to the public. Some would argue this allows complete transparency for the public to make their own opinions on celebrities based on their character but could also cause a lot of violations concerning celebrities private affairs. To conclude, celebrities have often had a lesser right to privacy compared to an ordinary citizen within the UK due to a demand from the public by using celebrity’s downfall as entertainment. However, due to several extreme cases, there is now a changing attitude to equalise the view of a celebrity having the same mental and financial agony a ordinary citizen would suffer if they were to suffer a public disgrace. Without these cases, the reform that is currently developing would not have taken place and there are only now the belief celebrities do not have a lesser right to privacy.