- Clause 6 could be relevant because the boy is under 16
- However, the boy himself already posted the video in the public domain, so he has forfeited his right to privacy
- Public interest - dangerous and serious anti-social behaviour and criminal activity
2. Man vs Zoo Magazine
- Clause 6 is relevant, as the girl in the photo is 10 years old
- Risk of intrusion into child's life, bullying and ridicule
- Only public interest in general abuse in football crowds which could just be represented with father's picture
- Daughter's face should have been blurred
Decision: Complaint Upheld
3. Man vs Sunday Times
- Clause 4 is relevant as the child is being harassed by journalists.
- Clause 6 applies as boy is 14 and has the right to complete his education without intrusion, especially as the journalist is trying to obtain photos of other schoolchildren without their or the school's permission.
- Clause 6 also condemns the paying of children too, as well as clause 15 which outlaws any paying of witnesses in criminal trials.
Decision: Complaint Upheld
4. Woman vs The Independent
- Clause 3 is relevant here, as the article is a breach of the woman's privacy. She had only told her private friends and the information was not public until declared in an official theatre press release
- No public interest - woman's private life
- It must also be taken into account that the information was released less than 3 months into her pregnancy, which adds another layer of insensitivity and uncertainty to the story, as pregnancies cannot ever be reliable until 3 months in. In this case, the woman did indeed have a miscarriage.
Decision: Complaint Upheld
5. A Woman vs The Sun
- Clause 5, very likely to be an intrusion into grief or shock of family.
- However, it took place in a public setting with many witnesses
- Paper insists that the suicide was not treated inappropriately
Decision: Complaint Dismissed
6. A Woman vs Eastbourne Gazette
- Clause 3 applies here, as the privacy of the man's health and life have been breached
- Clause 4 is relevant, as the man and his family are being harassed. Man asked the journalists to desist, but they went on to phone him again and leave another message
- Clause 8 was breached, as journalists must seek permission from an executive before entering a hospital
- No public interest
7. A Police Officer vs The Sunday Telegraph
- Clause 3 could be in breach, as the man only posted the statement to his own Facebook friends, and the policewoman's right to privacy has not been respected
- Clause 10 applies, as the newspaper admitted to subterfuge in their search for information
- However, the police officer did add the paper on Facebook, thus allowing it to obtain the information legitimately
- Overriding public interest in this case, as the public have a right to know the racist and extreme views/links to nazi ideals of any police officers working for them. The man's position of public power could make him a threat to any social groups he does not approve of.
8. Paul McCartney vs Hello! Magazine
- Clause 3 is the issue here, as his complaint regards the breach of privacy of him and his family
- Clause 5 is also very relevant, as the paper is intruding into his family grief at the death of wife and mother Linda McCartney
- However, his celebrity status means that he should expect media interest when seen out in a public place
- No public interest in the private grief of a celebrity over their dead wife.
Decision: Complaint Upheld
No comments:
Post a Comment