Privacy is a basic right & can't be overlooked in favour of the public interest, argues Lord Faulks

Summary

The debate centers on the balance between the public's interest in politicians' lives and their right to privacy. The speaker argues that while the media and opposition scrutinize public figures like politicians, they should not infringe on their private lives unless it's directly relevant to their public duties. Historically, privacy laws were vague, but recent developments have recognized the right to privacy, especially influenced by European human rights law. The speaker, chairing an independent press standards organization, emphasizes the importance of respecting individuals' privacy as a fundamental human right, even in the public eye.

Takeaways

• 🗳️ The debate centers on the balance between the public's interest in politicians' lives and the right to privacy of public figures.
• 🏛️ Politicians, as lawmakers and decision-makers, have a public role and are subject to scrutiny, but there is a question about the extent of their private lives that should be exposed.
• 🤔 The speaker argues against the notion that the public and media have the right to judge every aspect of a public figure's private life.
• 🎟️ An example given is the controversy over Michael Gove accepting football tickets, highlighting the difference between serious and trivial matters in public interest.
• 📺 The speaker reflects on how much has changed in terms of public figures' privacy, citing historical examples of politicians whose careers ended due to private scandals.
• 🏳️‍🌈 A shift in societal attitudes is noted, with many politicians now openly gay, which would have been a career-ender in the past.
• 📰 The speaker discusses the role of the free press in holding politicians accountable and the challenge of determining relevance in reporting on private lives.
• 📜 Historically, there was no law of privacy in the UK, but the legal landscape has evolved to recognize privacy rights, influenced by European Court of Human Rights case law.
• 📋 The speaker, as the chairman of the independent press standards organization, outlines the guidelines for respecting privacy while allowing for justified intrusions.
• 👥 The debate extends beyond politicians to other public figures like industry leaders, celebrities, and influencers, who also have a right to privacy but are subject to public interest.
• 🔍 The tension between public curiosity and the rights of individuals to privacy is a central theme, with the speaker advocating for the protection of privacy as a fundamental human right.

Q & A

What is the central debate discussed in the transcript?

The central debate is the tension between the public's interest in knowing about public figures' private lives and the right to privacy of these individuals.

Who are considered public figures according to the transcript?

Public figures include politicians, members of the Parliament, and other individuals in positions of power who make decisions that affect the public's lives.

Why is the media's role important in relation to public figures?

The media's role is to scrutinize public figures, hold them accountable, and inform the public about their actions, especially when it involves matters of public interest.

What is the speaker's view on the private life of politicians?

The speaker believes that while the public may be curious, politicians are still entitled to a private life and should not have every aspect of their lives exposed.

What example is given about politicians and their private lives in the past?

The speaker mentions Jeremy Thorpe, the leader of the Liberal Party, who was forced to hide his sexual orientation and faced a conspiracy to murder trial due to an affair.

How has the perception of privacy for politicians changed over time?

In the past, politicians' private lives were largely unknown to the public. Nowadays, many politicians are open about their sexual orientation, and the public is more aware of their personal lives.

What is the role of the independent press standards organization mentioned in the transcript?

The independent press standards organization regulates the press, handling complaints against it, including those related to privacy violations.

What is the provision regarding privacy in the independent press standards organization's guidelines?

The provision states that everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, and editors are expected to justify intrusions into an individual's private life.

How does the law of privacy in the UK relate to the European Court of Human Rights?

The UK law of privacy has evolved to recognize the right to privacy partly due to case law from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

What is the speaker's stance on the right to judge public figures' private lives?

The speaker argues against the right to judge, stating that individuals, even if in public life, should have the right to privacy for aspects of their lives that are not of public interest.

How does the speaker define the public interest in the context of privacy?

The speaker defines public interest as the rightful concern of the public in matters that affect them, but this should not infringe upon the basic human right to privacy of individuals.

Outlines

00:00

🗳️ Public Interest vs. Privacy of Public Figures

The speaker discusses the debate on the balance between the public's interest in the lives of politicians and their right to privacy. Politicians make crucial decisions that affect society, and while the opposition and media are responsible for scrutinizing them, the speaker questions the extent to which their private lives should be exposed. Examples are given, such as Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock, to illustrate situations where the boundary between public interest and privacy is blurred. The speaker argues against the notion that the public has a right to judge every aspect of a public figure's private life, emphasizing the need for a distinction between relevant and irrelevant personal information.

05:02

📜 The Evolution of Privacy Laws and Public Figures

This paragraph delves into the evolution of privacy laws, influenced by case law from the European Court of Human Rights. The speaker, who is the chairman of an independent press standards organization, explains the current provisions regarding privacy, which allow for intrusion into an individual's private life only if justified. The speaker highlights the tension between public interest and the right to privacy, especially for celebrities and public figures who often use the press for their benefit. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the importance of respecting individuals' privacy as a fundamental human right, suggesting that the public's curiosity should be secondary to this right.

Keywords

💡Public Interest

Public interest refers to matters that affect the general populace and are of concern to the community as a whole. In the video's context, it is a central debate point, discussing whether the public has a right to know about the private lives of public figures. The speaker argues that while the public may be interested in such details, this interest should not override the individual's right to privacy, as exemplified by the mention of politicians' decisions affecting everyone's lives.

💡Privacy

Privacy is the state of being free from public attention or scrutiny. The script discusses the tension between the public's curiosity about public figures' lives and the need to protect their private matters. The speaker emphasizes the importance of privacy as a basic human right, even for those in the public eye, using the example of the law recognizing the right to privacy, influenced by European Court of Human Rights case law.

💡Public Figures

Public figures are individuals who are widely known by the public, often due to their roles in politics, entertainment, or other high-profile areas. The script explores the extent to which the private lives of these individuals should be open to public scrutiny. Politicians, for instance, are mentioned as public figures who make decisions with far-reaching consequences, yet they still have a right to a private life.

💡Media Scrutiny

Media scrutiny refers to the critical examination and reporting on the actions and behaviors of individuals, especially those in positions of power or influence. The script mentions the role of the opposition and the media in scrutinizing politicians, suggesting that while this is necessary for accountability, it should not infringe upon their private lives unnecessarily.

💡Accountability

Accountability is the obligation of individuals, particularly those in public office, to report on their actions and be responsible for the consequences of their decisions. The video script discusses how journalists hold politicians accountable, which may sometimes involve reporting on their private lives if it is relevant to their public duties, such as the case of Michael Gove accepting tickets from a COVID-19 contract sponsor.

💡Political Decisions

Political decisions are choices made by politicians that have significant impacts on society, including laws, taxes, and declarations of war. The script uses these decisions to highlight the importance of public figures and the role of the media and opposition in scrutinizing them, while also noting that their private lives should remain private.

💡Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation refers to an individual's enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, or none. The script discusses how societal attitudes towards sexual orientation have evolved, with the example of Jeremy Thorpe, whose political career ended due to his concealment of his sexual orientation and subsequent scandal.

💡Defamation

Defamation is a false statement that unjustly harms the reputation of an individual. The script touches on the historical lack of a privacy law in the UK, with reputations being theoretically protected by defamation law, which could be invoked if someone could afford to sue.

💡Independent Press Standards Organization

The Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO) is a body that regulates the press in the UK, handling complaints against the press. The script mentions the speaker's role as the chairman of IPSO and the organization's guidelines on privacy, which require editors to justify intrusions into an individual's private life.

💡Celebrity

A celebrity is a person who is famous, often in the fields of entertainment, sports, or other public arenas. The script notes that celebrities, like other public figures, are entitled to privacy, but their public disclosures and the extent to which they use the press can affect what is considered private.

💡TikTok Stars

TikTok Stars are individuals who have gained fame and recognition through the social media platform TikTok. The script includes them as part of the broader category of public figures who warrant privacy, reflecting the evolving nature of fame and public interest in the digital age.

Highlights

Debate on the tension between public interest in politicians' lives and their right to privacy.

Politicians make important decisions affecting citizens' lives and are subject to scrutiny.

Questioning if politicians are entitled to any private life.

Critique of the public's right to judge politicians' private lives.

Examples of politicians' indiscretions and the public's reaction.

The role of the media in scrutinizing politicians' actions.

The evolving nature of privacy and public figures over time.

Historical lack of privacy laws and the development of privacy rights.

The impact of European Court of Human Rights on privacy laws.

The chairman's role in the independent press standards organization.

Press regulation and the balance between public interest and privacy.

The public's natural curiosity versus the right to privacy.

The debate's conclusion emphasizing the importance of privacy rights.

Transcripts

at the heart of this

debate lies a tension between what the

public are or might be interested in and

make judgments about so we're told

that's one view of public interest and

what is properly to be regarded as a

matter of public

interest Madam president it's a pleasure

to be here but may I make it clear that

I am not standing for election on any

office of this esteemed ion um who are

public figures well politicians of

course uh they make laws in Parliament

they decide if we're going to war how

much tax we're going to pay and they

make decisions that affect our lives in

all sorts of ways there are

Representatives even if we didn't vote

for them and it's the job of the

opposition and of the media to

scrutinize them but are they entitled to

any private life at

all now you may think you know more than

you need or want to know about Boris

Johnson or Matt Hancock as we've heard

this evening who chose to expose himself

both literally and metaphorically to

CCTV cameras and on the television today

we we learn that Michael Gove is in

trouble because he accepted two tickets

to Queens Park Rangers

football uh from a a sponsor who had a

covid cont contract I have to say it's a

serious matter we're entitled to know

about it but if you're going to bribe

somebody two tickets to QPR doesn't seem

to me a very serious

offer now the proposers of the motion

appear to be saying that public

interests entitles us to know about

anybody's private lives whether they

like it or not they've rather elided the

motion elevated their right to judge

above the right to make proper allowance

for the

individual's uh right to privacy what is

this business about the right to judge I

don't have the right to judge uh what is

something about your private life that

you should be able to keep private even

if you're in public life this is

something of a moving picture when I was

the age of most of you politicians were

gray middle-aged Men We generally knew

nothing about their private lives but of

course some of them were gay some

perhaps more than some were unfaithful

to their wives or

husbands take Jeremy Thorp leader of the

Liberal Party ostensibly a married

heterosexual he was not in fact but to

confess his orientation would have

spelled the end of his career in trying

to suppress stories about his affair

with Norman Scott he ended up in court

in trial for conspir cons iracy to

murder nowadays he could have had a

successful career as a politician and

acknowledged his sexual

orientation we've heard about John

perfumo already this evening who had an

affair with Christine Keeler a much

younger woman and lied to the House of

Commons about it bringing his career to

an end there might be have been some

justification for exposing on the basis

that he shared his affections for

Christine Keeler with a attache from the

Russian Embassy who about whom there was

some doubts as to his uh his spying

activities uh but in fact otherwise I'm

not convinced that the affair would have

Justified any intrusion into his private

life he he had not lied to the House of

Commons which he wouldn't probably have

done now many MPS nowadays in senior

positions are openly gay so what but

suppose they did not want to acknowledge

their orientation should we be entitled

to know I don't think so nor to

judge a free press is a fundamental part

of a healthy democracy journalists hold

politicians to account and if relevant

may be justified in referring to their

private lives but if relevant and not

always the difficulty is of course in

Drawing the Line

historically we had no law of privacy in

this country it was to amorphous a

concept we had the right to preserve our

bodily Integrity if somebody assaulted

you in any way you could sue them they

could be prosecuted your home as an

Englishman was your Castle you may

remember from childhood trespassers will

be prosecuted an inaccurate statement of

the law but still embodied a principle

with which we all familiar your

reputation was protected theoretically

by the law of defamation if you could

afford to sue anybody but the law has

now moved in the direction of

recognizing the right to privacy partly

as a result of case law from the

European Court of human rights in

Strasburg I am the chairman of the

independent press standards

organization which is a body which uh

reports to regulate the Press if you

want to make a complaint against the

Press you can do so most of the

complaints are about inaccuracy but we

do have a provision in relation to

privacy it says this everyone is

entitled to respect for their private

and family life home physical and mental

health and

correspondence correspondence rather

old-fashioned concept nowadays including

digital

Communications editors will be expected

to justify

intrusions into an individual's private

life but in considering an individual's

reasonable expectation of privacy

account will be taken of the

complainants own public disclosures of

information and the extent to which the

material complained about is already in

the public domain or will become so I

think that's a pretty fair summary of

the proper approach to the law of

privacy now politicians aren't the only

people of course uh whom we're

interested in Captains of Industry as

they used quaintly to be known members

of the Royal Family

film stars musicians Sportsmen

influencers Tik Tok Stars people who

appear on reality television uh and the

like all are entitled to privacy but as

is reflected in that cause disclosures

are relevant celebrities use the press

and can't complain if the Press comments

on matters which might otherwise be

considered off

limits but at the heart of this debate

lies a tension between what the public

are or might be interested in and make

judgments about so we told that's one

view of public interest and what is

properly to be regarded as a matter of

public interest our Natural Curiosity

should give way to the rights of

individuals to their privacy this motion

would deny them this basic human right

the the protection of such a right is

genuinely in the public interest thank

[Applause]

you