The Sun and the moon

So, did you see the pictures?

Did you buy the Sun to see the pictures?

Did you buy the Sun out of the principle of the freedom of the press and the public interest in publishing the pictures?

I do hope not.

Yes, as the by-line said “The photos that you've probably already seen on the internet”, which is the best place for them.

So, was the Sun right to publish the pictures? Does the publication entrench the freedom of the press in a time where it is mortally threatened by the internet? Or does it ride roughshod of the right of an individual to privacy?

It has been subject to perhaps more learned commentary than from myself, however this is my reasonably informed opinion, and not the first I have made on the subject.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, agreed by the Council of Europe on 4^th November 1950 into UK law. Schedule 1 of the Act repeats the Articles.

There are essentially two conflicting Articles:

Article 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So, it is clear - the freedom of expression claimed by the Sun is accompanied by duties and responsibilities.

In the UK, whilst the law is in a slight state of flux, generally the right to a private life is protected unless there is a particularly overwhelming public interest in the disclosure.

Now, I would probably be slightly more receptive to the argument of the Editor of the Sun that this was all a question of freedom of the press, had they not been so sensational about the splash. The manner in which it was presented was one of a commercial coup, rather than any elegant argument over fundamental rights. If you are taking the moral high ground, you don't couple it with a pun and an 'exclusive' banner.

So, is there a public interest in the story?

Well, for a start we have an established Article 8 claim. This was clearly a private matter, at a private party, in a private hotel room, where privates were exposed.

But is there a scandal of such depth that Article 10 overrides this?

No.

This was not a case where the law was broken; nor any moral or ethical wrong perpetrated - he was not cheating on a wife or mother of his baby or any such. This is pure titillation.

If Harry were in a relationship, then it is for a discussion between him and his girlfriend; however I can see many arguments to use which also discount this being a case of Freedom of the Press trumping the rights of the individual:

There was no indication of sex. It was pure horseplay. There's nothing wrong with that.

He was on a break from the army. This is what people on a break from the army do (in fact they normally get up to a lot worse).

He was on holiday. Even if you are not in the army, when you are on holiday you let your hair down (or bum out).

He is 27. It is what 27 year olds do.

He was in Las Vegas. It is what people in Las Vegas do.

He wasn't the only person there. This is precisely how people react under peer pressure.

The best comment I have seen on the story has come from Boris Johnson, a man who I have a curious admiration for. Never has someone come across as so eccentric - no, actually bonkers - and yet so erudite, witty and intelligent. He stated that “The real scandal would be if you went all the way to Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way.”

So no, there is no scandal.

Indeed, in comments made to the Leveson Enquiry a long time prior to this being a story a clear distinction was made: just because something is of general interest to the public does not mean that it is in the public interest.

The Sun's main defence was that the pictures were already on websites all over the world.

Well boo hoo.

In the UK the print media, television, radio and the internet are all regulated independently and differently, and you abide by the regulations which apply. Furthermore, the fact that a webpage may be accessible internationally does not necessarily meant that domestic rights and obligations are irrelevant. If you want to publish a newspaper in this country you abide by the rules, regulations and responsibilities. It is no excuse to say that some other party, in a media to which those regulations do not apply, has already done it therefore we can ignore the regulations.

If you don't like the fact that private individuals in this country have rights, take your publication abroad.