One interesting aspect of the Tiger Woods scandal was the lack of concern anyone seemed to have for privacy concerns once the initial story broke. Both entertainment and 'real' media latched on to every juicy detail, posting pictures of alleged conquests, speculating on details of potential divorce settlements, and drilling ever deeper into the minutiae of the most personal of family issues. Indeed, during celebrity scandals in particular, the ubiquitous presence and role of the media is so unquestioned that its intrusion into personal affairs rarely merits discussion. As Americans, we are as conditioned to getting our daily fix of celebrity gossip as we are to our morning coffee. However, the role of media in America is worth discussing at times, particularly in a comparative sense. Indeed, in some jurisdictions, rather than resting upon a foundation of First Amendment rights, journalists acting as they do here would more likely to find themselves in prison or writing large checks. There are some places where privacy laws provide protections for the rich and famous, particularly when they are going through their most embarassing of situations.
Until today, a list of such jurisdictions could have included England, where, though gossip pages are as voracious as their New World counterparts, judicial activism had recently tempered the the potential impact of a few particularly salacious cases. Despite the lack of a mandate from Parliament to cover up such situations, some judges were going out of their way to ensure that some, most notably footballers, were able to cover up their affairs in a sort of 'back door privacy' move involving injunctions which pre-empted reports on dalliances. This line of judicial decisions stemmed out of an interpretation of the Human Rights Act of 1998, and has frustrated the media on several occasions. In the latest example, reports over the weekend claimed that one player had used a 'super-injunction' to prevent details of his affair with a former teammate's girlfriend from appearing in the weekend papers. Many had criticised that original decision to impose an injunction, saying it was another instance of anonymity being granted “willy nilly” by the courts to enable the rich to prevent negative publicity.
However, in a ruling that reflects the feelings of the majority of the public and echoes comments recently made by members of Commons, a judge ruled today that the super-injunction England and Chelsea captain John Terry had gained in his fight to keep reports of his affair with his mate's then-girlfriend was not necessary. In his reversal-decision, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that the previous injunction was “not necessary or proportionate having regard to the level of gravity of interference with the private life of the applicant”, and added that “the nub of the applicant’s complaint is to protect his reputation, in particular with sponsors.” Notably, in addtion to his £7 million/year wages, Terry earns millions from sponsorship deals dependant on his public image.
Though many, among them newspaper editors, will applaud the move by the courts, and though it may come closest to reflecting the current state of legislative law in England, it is worth noting the price being paid in this situation. Terry is risking millions of pounds per year in sponsorships, the captaincy of his country, at least one important friendship, and potentially his wife and twins. It is difficult to feel too bad for this long-time playboy however, as he has brought this situation upon himself. More sympathetic characters in the story include his young family and former teammate Wayne Bridge, who are all reportedly, and understandably, devastated over the situation. Despite the unquestionably legal basis for the decision, it is difficult in these types of situations to truly feel that justice has been served when the innocent victims are the ones who end up being the most deeply hurt.
No comments:
Post a Comment