Privacy tort
« Previous Entries Next Entries »Free speech vs privacy
Sunday, June 12th, 2011A New Mexico man puts up a billboard of himself holding the outline of a baby, saying: This Would Have Been a Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To NOT KILL Our Child! His ex-partner (who says she had a miscarriage not an abortion) sues for harrassment and invasion of […]
Sauce for the goose
Friday, June 10th, 2011Has anyone else twigged to the irony that the UK media have fought, tooth and nail, against Max Mosley’s attempt to force them to give advance notice to people whose privacy they plan to invade (which would give those people a chance to seek an injunction before the damage was done by publication)… at the […]
Max Mosley slapped down
Wednesday, May 11th, 2011The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected Formula 1 boss Max Mosley’s claim that the UK’s laws didn’t sufficiently protect his privacy because they didn’t require the press to give him advance notice before publishing invasive articles about him. The most surprising thing about this decision is that the ECHR held that it […]
Mosley decision imminent
Tuesday, May 10th, 2011Max Mosley has argued before the European Court of Human Rights that the right to privacy requires that people subjected to invasive intrusions by the media must be informed about them before publication to give them a chance to challenge them in the courts before the damage is done. This has the potential to throw […]
18-year-old in Hughes incident awarded injunction
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011The student who made the complaint against Darren Hughes has obtained a High Court injunction preventing him from being identified. The claim is made against Fairfax, APN, TVNZ, MediaWorks and bloggers Danyl McLauchlan and David Farrer. The injunction, however, applies to anyone with notice of it. It would be a contempt of court to breach […]
The earthquake privacy debate continues
Friday, March 18th, 2011The Court Report last week featured a debate over the quake coverage and whether it may have invaded the privacy of some of the victims. (I reprise my role as reporter for the show, and interview Tim Watkin from TVNZ and pundit.co.nz, who defends the coverage). On the panel are VUW senior lecturer Dr Nicole Moreham, […]
The personal touch
Thursday, March 3rd, 2011The US Supreme Court might have decided that corporations have speech rights, but it has just ruled that (in the context of freedom of information, anyway) they don’t have privacy rights. Under the US federal Freedom of Information Act, information can be withheld if its disclosure “could reasonably be expected to consistitute an unwarranted invasion […]
ECHR upholds Campbell, criticises success fees
Wednesday, January 19th, 2011The European Court of Human rights has endorsed the House of Lords majority finding in the Naomi Campbell case that her privacy was breached by the publication of photographs of her outside a Narcotics Anonymous meeting – and that this was not a disproportionate interference with the paper’s freedom of expression. (There’s lots of language […]
Pike River privacy IV
Friday, December 17th, 2010You may have seen the debate between Dr Nicole Moreham and I about the possibility of a privacy lawsuit against the media for showing pictures of grieving Pike River coal mine relatives leaving the meeting where they were told that the miners had certainly died. Here’s a recent BSA case that sheds some light. It […]
Pike River privacy III
Tuesday, December 7th, 2010In an earlier post, I wondered whether Dr Nicole Moreham was right to say that the grieving relatives at Pike River, caught on camera shortly after being told that all 29 miners were certainly dead, could successfully sue for invasion of privacy. Here’s her reply: Thanks, Steven. I am glad that you agree that there […]
« Previous Entries Next Entries »