Letter: Potential misuse of privacy laws
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The calls for greater protection of privacy are entirely understandable, but we should keep cool heads lest new measures turn out to be unduly restrictive and, like our libel laws, easily open to misuse (leading article, 9 November).
Few will object to any new law that outlaws trespass, bugging or the taking of photographs on private property without consent. A new tort preventing molestation or harassment would probably be widely welcomed. However, in its recent consultation paper, the Lord Chancellor's Department has gone much further and proposed that virtually any revelation of a private kind which causes 'substantial distress' should be actionable.
This may seem just and unobjectionable, until one begins to explore the implications for responsible biographers and historians. The truth often hurts and may arguably cause 'substantial distress', but that is surely no reason to give an automatic right to start legal proceedings. I suggest that if there is to be a new general law protecting privacy, the test to be satisfied by an aggrieved individual needs to be a good deal tougher.
A defence that publication was 'in the public interest' would help to reduce the threat to freedom of expression. But the consultation paper looks at the 'public interest' very narrowly (for example, the prevention of crime or the correction of a misleading statement) rather than whether the disclosure was reasonable in the context of publication which, taken as whole, was 'in the public interest'.
Yours faithfully,
MARK LE FANU
General Secretary
The Society of Authors
London, SW10
9 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments