Privacy Laws and the Royal Family
“Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her. It is not right that a few months into a relationship with him that Ms. Markle should be subjected to such a storm.
“He knows commentators will say this is ‘the price she has to pay’ and that ‘this is all part of the game’. He strongly disagrees. This is not a game — it is her life and his.
“He is also aware that there is significant curiosity about his private life. He has never been comfortable with this, but he has tried to develop a thick skin about the level of media interest that comes with it.”
Said a statement issued by Prince Harry’s Communications Secretary in November regarding the online trolls and harassment his girlfriend Meghan Markle received in light of their relationship by journalists, photographers, and the public. Click here to read the full statement.
The relationship between the Royal Family and the media, especially photographers, has always been a delicate one. Its been a long longstanding battle between the royals, wanting to find a balance between privacy, but wanting the public to receive a look into their lifestyle and the charitable things they are involved in.
It is a fine line that is often crossed with intruding paparazzi. Most noticeably with Princess Diana’s untimely death in 1997 after her car was pursued by French paparazzi on motorbikes in Paris trying to get a front page photo. Seven photographers were arrested to investigate whether their involvement had anything to do with the crash
The Queen, the Duke, her children, and grandchildren are all exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, which entitles any person the right to request information from public authorities, as well as the expectation that public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation is an independent regulatory body of UK print press which insists it treats the Royal Family no differently from other individuals when it comes to the protection offered by the Editors’ Code of Practice. It has previously issued advisories in regards to warnings of harassment of Kate Middleton before she married Prince William, similar to those issued to protect other famous people.
What is the Editors’ Code of Practise and what does it say on privacy?
2. *Privacy
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual’s private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant’s own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
3. *Harassment
i) Journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.
ii) They must not persist in questioning, telephoning, pursuing or photographing individuals once asked to desist; nor remain on property when asked to leave and must not follow them. If requested, they must identify themselves and whom they represent.
iii) Editors must ensure these principles are observed by those working for them and take care not to use non-compliant material from other sources.
*There may be exceptions to the clauses marked * where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.
The code is vague and it is up to individual editors and journalists to make the final judgement on correct protocol. Something that I personally find intriguing is the difference between ‘public interest’ and what the public find interesting. They are NOT the same. Public interest includes; detecting or exposing crime, or the threat of crime, protecting public safety, disclosing a miscarriage of justice or Raising or contributing to a matter of public debate. To read the full Editors’ Code click here.
I think it’s admirable that Prince Harry has spoken about the unfair online trolling and abuse his girlfriend has had to endure from the press. From nasty sexist and racist comments, to the persistent phone calls and attempts of making contact with her closest friends and family, to having to battle past photographers to get through her own front door. This is something that she shouldn’t have to live with, there has been a clear breach of her privacy. Unfortunately it is a statement that Prince Harry felt that he needed to make.
This is invasion of privacy is something that the Royals are no stranger to. In September 2012 regulations were not followed when topless photos of the Duchess of Cambridge were printed in a French magazine when on holiday at a private chateau in France.
French privacy laws are known to be some of the strictest in the world, their laws ban the disclosure of a person’s private life on private land, but also forbids “theft of personal image”, which can prevent paparazzi photographing people in public places.
I agree with the French rules and believe that everyone has the right to a private life, especially when on private property. I think it’s shocking that photographers from over half a mile away were able to capture such intimate shots with the use of a long-lens camera. However, as Prince Harry’s statement mentions, ‘the price they pay’ because of their status and the worldwide interest in the family. I think it almost naïve of them to expect that they can have this right to privacy without intrusion from the outside world. It is sad, but unfortunately it’s inevitable.
St James’s Palace confirmed legal proceedings for the privacy breach were commenced by the Duke and Duchess who successfully obtained an injunction against French magazine Closer to prevent them from re-publishing or selling the pictures. The magazine editors, a Chief Executive of the Mondadori magazine group, and a photographer were charged with ‘invasion of privacy.’
My Say
The Human Rights Act 1998 says ‘everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence’, which I think is fair and should apply to all people, no matter their celebrity or royal status. It is evident from Prince Harry’s statement that he is concerned over the lack of respect that photographers have had for Meghan’s private and family life. Although privacy laws and the Human Rights Act exist, they are not often practised, or they do not see through serious enough consequences for perpetrators.
I think that the HRA is too vague. It discusses ‘misuse of private information’, and explains that images or information individuals believe should have a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ over is published, an action can be brought for the misuse of that information. For example the Duchess was assumed she was on private property alone with her husband. However, this ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ is broad and vague and it will be considered on a judge by judge basis in the courts over whether privacy has been breached.
I think it is important to remember the value of privacy law in the celebrity-obsessed digital age and how hard it must be to maintain authority in a world where it must be almost impossible to control and monitor the millions of social media accounts. It would be challenging to keep private information private, for example, once the photos of the Duchess were out, they could very easily spread.
Although great, social media also has other downfalls, Prince Harry bought to light the ‘the outright sexism and racism of social media trolls’ that his girlfriend has received. This shows the power and impact that social media can have. People want to use social media to have their say it can be used as a barrier and something to hide behind as a way to attempt to get away with abuse.
Let us remember to use the power of social media to our advantages and not to tear others down.
