It may be legal ...

Victor

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1115/1224283322699.html

Right to privacy not infringed by publication of photographs

Hickey Anor -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd Neutral citation IEHC 349.

High Court

Judgment was delivered on October 8th, 2010, by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, president of the High Court.

Judgment

The publication of a photograph of the plaintiff, Ruth Hickey, and her partner leaving the Registry of Births with their son, along with an accompanying article quoting an abusive phone call from her partner Mr Agnew’s estranged wife, Adele King, did not infringe Ms Hickey’s right to privacy and was not defamatory.


Blah, blah, blah ....

All allegations rejected.

However, he added: “The exercise in which the defendant newspaper engaged in respect of these two publications represented the lowest standards of journalism imaginable.”

coylemj

Her case for privacy was weakened by the fact that she had previously given an interview with some newspaper, I think the judge took this into consideration even though it gives rise to a Hobson's Choice scenario..

For some vague reason the tabloids have taken an interest in you, you are being harrassed by photographers and journos at every turn so you consult with a Max Clifford type who suggests that you find a 'friendly' newspaper and you give them an exclusive interview in an attempt to satisfy public curiosity and (hopefully) get the other papers off your back. Based on this judgement that would be a big mistake.

Carawaystick

Surely "the lowest standards of journalism imaginable" would be libellous, malicious etc??
Maybe it's the lowest std. which doesn't get legal protection.

I wonder would ms King's famous voicemail get some protection?

coylemj

Carawaystick wrote: »

Surely "the lowest standards of journalism imaginable" would be libellous, malicious etc??
Maybe it's the lowest std. which doesn't get legal protection.

No, bad taste and low standards of journalism do not of themselves constitute libel or malice, just an urge to sell as many papers as possible to people who don't care where their daily 'news' comes from.

Carawaystick wrote: »

I wonder would ms King's famous voicemail get some protection?

The judge said that "the voicemail message was already in the public domain" which I take to mean that since half the country had already heard it, it was not a libel to quote from it and "any reasonable reader would see Ms King’s comments as vulgar abuse expressed in strong and offensive terms" i.e. gutter talk and so not to be taken seriously.

Carawaystick

coylemj wrote: »

No, bad taste and low standards of journalism do not of themselves constitute libel or malice, just an urge to sell as many papers as possible to people who don't care where their daily 'news' comes from.

Ah, I meant that surely libellous journalism would be of a lower standard than the bad taste in this case.

coylemj

I get the point now. Fair comment.