I was pretty sure the Mail/Express couldn't get much lower
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 34731
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Condemning kids??? They should all be in the workhouse or doing National Service....Verbal wrote:This is just getting worse...condeming kids for leading vaguely normal lives, now lying to interviewees...come on Paula, one more for the hattrick!
Shameless link to my blog on the latest developments
-
mummywhycantieatcrayons
- Legend
- Posts: 7192
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: London
In terms of law...
Basically we don't have a tort of invasion of privacy the way they do in the US, but we do have a tort of breach of confidence. If you have a situation in which the tabloids know or ought reasonably to know that the subject of the material has a reasonable expectation of privacy, (an extreme e.g. - photos of nudity taken privately) then there's a breach of confidence if they publish the material, unless there is a public interest which outweighs the detriment to the subject, (for e.g., if he is a mass murderer on the run, and the picture is off facebook).
Reasonable expectation of privacy turns on whether the reasonable person in the subject's position would be highly offended if the material were published and where the material is of no legitimate concern to the public.
Basically it's a balancing act between their interests and the public's interests, all in the context of the original publication of the material. If they had it on a public profile on facebook where everyone in the world could view it, then it's fair game, apparently.
Anyway.... a disgraceful and spectacularly out of touch bit of 'journalism'.
Basically we don't have a tort of invasion of privacy the way they do in the US, but we do have a tort of breach of confidence. If you have a situation in which the tabloids know or ought reasonably to know that the subject of the material has a reasonable expectation of privacy, (an extreme e.g. - photos of nudity taken privately) then there's a breach of confidence if they publish the material, unless there is a public interest which outweighs the detriment to the subject, (for e.g., if he is a mass murderer on the run, and the picture is off facebook).
Reasonable expectation of privacy turns on whether the reasonable person in the subject's position would be highly offended if the material were published and where the material is of no legitimate concern to the public.
Basically it's a balancing act between their interests and the public's interests, all in the context of the original publication of the material. If they had it on a public profile on facebook where everyone in the world could view it, then it's fair game, apparently.
Anyway.... a disgraceful and spectacularly out of touch bit of 'journalism'.
Prufrock wrote: Like money hasn't always talked. You might not like it, or disagree, but it's the truth. It's a basic incentive, people always have, and always will want what's best for themselves and their families
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests