Pressure rises for privacy law reform

Goldsmith and Hunt speak out after identities of celebrities alleged to have taken out injunctions are revealed on Twitter Political pressure mounted for privacy law reform after a cabinet minister warned that Twitter had been “making a mockery” of celebrities’ attempts to gag the media – and a high-profile Conservative backbencher who once took out his own injunction called on parliament to develop a privacy law. Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, who is responsible for the media, said he would “sit down” with Ken Clarke, the minister of justice, to review the regulatory environment because “a crazy situation” had emerged “where information is available freely online which you are not able to print in newspapers”. Zac Goldsmith, the multimillionaire MP, spoke for the first time about his decision to take out an injunction, arguing that they were necessary because, he said, some newspapers were unwilling “to distinguish between what is in the public interest and what is merely of prurient interest to some of the public”. Their comments came after the identities of several celebrities who have taken out injunctions preventing the mention of their name in the context of sexual indiscretions were revealed on Twitter. Public interest in the identity of the individuals – who cannot be named by the Guardian under the court orders – was so great that Twitter had its busiest ever day of traffic. Meanwhile, on the same day, Max Mosley, the former Formula One boss outed by the News of the World for participating in a sado-masochistic orgy, lost his legal challenge to force newspapers to warn people before publishing stories exposing their private lives, after a European court ruled on Tuesday that such as system would have a “chilling effect” on the press. Goldsmith said he believed the solution to the injunction problem was that “parliament should design proper privacy laws” so that “the media can do the job we want them to do, without fear, but that they don’t invade people’s privacy unless there’s good reason”. He conceded the gagging orders were “an overreaction” on the part of wealthy celebrities and politicians, but said their existence was “an inevitable one” given repeated attempts by tabloids to write about people’s personal lives. Noting that David Cameron has said we need to have “a discussion and a debate” about whether to introduce a privacy law, Goldsmith added: “The PM has said he wants parliament to take the initiative, and he’s right. I hope he follows through with it.” Hunt, though, reacted cautiously to the idea of introducing a privacy law, telling reporters it was important to examine the alternatives. “We need to get into a situation where regulation and legislation is up to speed with changes in technology and that we get the balance right between the rights of an individual and the rights we all cherish for freedom of expression.” The MP for Richmond Park & North Kingston took out a court order in 2008, as he sought to prevent the media from reporting that he, his sister Jemima Khan and his then wife Sheherazade had had their personal email accounts hacked. Goldsmith, his former wife – whom he divorced in 2010 shortly after becoming an MP – and his sister all took out an injunction in December 2008 to prevent the publication of personal emails that had been offered by an unnamed individual to a national newspaper. The court order was varied in March of this year to allow the identities of the three who had taken out the injunction to be made public. Describing the decision to go to law, the MP said: “The emails were private, and even the tabloids seemed to accept that there was no justification for publishing them.” Goldsmith agreed to allow his anonymity to be waived this year because “I do not want or need” it to be maintained – before going on to add that it was appropriate to keep the identity of the hacker secret because of the “person’s mental state”. Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled in March that the hacking of the emails was “a flagrant breach of the law of confidence” but “having regard to medical evidence” about the “fragile” individual who hacked into the accounts, the high court judge kept that person’s identity secret. Reacting to that ruling, Goldsmith told the Guardian: “It is a perfect example of where a superinjunction is justified and right.” Possibly after confusion relating to this case, Jemima Khan was separately – and wrongly – named as having taken out a gagging order to prevent “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson being published. Khan said the rumours were “untrue and upsetting” – although they remain in circulation on Twitter. The politician’s criticism found some support from media owners and editors. Evgeny Lebedev, the son of Alexander Lebedev, the owner of the Independent and the Evening Standard, said British newspapers had to be “wary of abusing our freedom” and needed to conduct themselves with responsibility. He added: “If we slip up, the judges and politicians will enforce the restrictions that will not be so different from those in regimes where there are institutional straitjackets, preventing the freedom to report.” Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, warned that the problem with examining laws affecting freedom of speech was that reform was often proposed in a piecemeal fashion. “It is increasingly difficult to look at one of the laws affecting free speech in isolation from the other – and from the sort of standards and expectations that are going to be widely debated in society in relation to government, the state, the internet and business.” Privacy Privacy & the media Twitter Superinjunctions Internet Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk

Posted by on May 11, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.