I’ve deliberately tried to avoid using certain words in this post about the rejection of a Privacy complaint by the Press Complaints Commission. (This is not link bait and I don’t want to attract unwelcome traffic alongside often more sobering content.)
Suffice to say, a young lady posted some perhaps misguided pics on her Bebo page in 2006 which had since become widely circulated online. Earlier this year Loaded magazine offered a £500 reward in a stunt to find the girl in the photo, causing her to complain the article had intruded on her privacy. The Guardian says:
The commission did sympathise with the woman, and accepted that the tastefulness of the article was questionable… but didn’t think it possible to censure the magazine for commenting on material that had already had such wide circulation, and which had already been contextualised in the same way.
Ouch. As we covered in our free eBook UGC and the Law there are no Privacy laws in the UK but how does a situation like this look under the European Convention on Human Rights? Any ideas?
It’s easy to say that the girl was foolish in the first place and Loaded shouldn’t be penalised over all the other sites which have used the pictures for years. But, I’d argue that it’s not unreasonable to want to complain about an “official” media outlet reviving this in the UK vs. the [un]reality of chasing down 100s of smaller sites and ISPs all over the world.
By trying to publicly identify the girl nearly four years on were Loaded encouraging readers to breach her privacy as it stands today?
I’m also intrigued, as the pictures were posted in 2006 and on youth network Bebo, what was the complainants age at the time of posting the pictures? Does accountability change based on age and experience? Should it?
Image:
Tempero on Google+
Poll keeps balancing out. Wonder if there's a gender divide? Women more or less sympathetic?
I think the point you make about Loaded being an “official” media outlet makes all the difference. There are things people can say in private, which official media cannot publish. The excuse that media sometimes use: that it's current news and people are talking about it; therefore they can report about it – doesn't apply here. Four years ago, perhaps, but now it's using someones private pics. Whatever others (blogs/illegal sites) do is no excuse. So I do think the PCC should have upheld the complaint.