The Balancing Act
As Richard Burton noted, rights of freedom and of privacy should be treated with equality. In Douglas v Hello! it was held that no presumptive priority was given to freedom of expression under article 10 where it was in conflict with privacy under article 8. The States as well as the Court must indeed take care not to give one of the rights total priority over the other, unless it is made clear that one of them is absolute.
It is necessary to examine the modalities of prioritizing: to what extent may one right restrict another? Is it preferable to always look for the ‘least restrictive alternative’, or should instead a ‘borderline’ criterion be used, allowing more room for policy discretion?
From looking at the Court’s case law, some criteria appear to stand out:
Public interest is one of the factors considered when balancing privacy against press freedom. This notion is closely linked to the notion of ‘necessity’ in a democratic society. A clear and valid public interest defence must be demonstrated in order for the right to respect for personal privacy to be outweighed by the right to freedom of press. The balance depends on the Court’s assesement of what constitutes public interest, which is something that is hard to define.
Public interest might even turn out to be the decisive factor, as it is reflected in the leading and recent case : Van Hannover v. Germany case. It made it clear that the Princess, a “figure of contemporary society par excellence”, also has the right to protection of her private life. But the Court also insisted on the fact that the Princess did not have a public function as a politician. The photographs in question were of an entirely private nature; they provided no contribution to a debate of public interest. The public interest is now requiered to justify publication of details of a person who neither holds public office nor an official activity. The...
Please login to view the full essay...