One response

1. 

   Iain Murray

   September 9, 2004

   To be fair, Tim, the ruling isn’t quite as bad as that. Here’s how the Telegraph’s legal editor summarized it last month:
   The Strasbourg judges drew a distinction between reporting personal facts about politicians and reporting on the private life of an individual – such as Princess Caroline – who had no official function.
   If the sole purpose of publishing articles and photographs was to satisfy the public’s curiosity about a person’s private life, publication could not contribute to “any debate of general interest to society”. In these circumstances, the judges said, “freedom of expression calls for a narrower interpretation”.
   People did not have a “legitimate interest” in knowing where the Princess was and how she behaved, they added, despite the fact that she was well known to the public. “Even if such a public interest exists, as does a commercial interest of the magazines in publishing these photos and these articles, in the instant case those interests must, in the court’s view, yield to the applicant’s right to the effective protection of her private life.”
   +end quote
   Nevertheless, he regarded it as a worrying precedent. I tend to agree. Europe is moving further and further away from the First Amendment concept of freedom of expression and towards one where judges decide what you can and can’t say. That’s better than politicians, I suppose, but only just.

   Loading…

   Reply