When pondering the issue of ‘freedom of expression’ one is immediately drawn to those who may be the victim of others exercising their right. Should such a right be limited in order to protect celebrities' privacy?
There has been an increasing trend of celebrities suing the press, especially in the UK, where Hollywood based celebrities choose to sue in English courts where libel laws are more favourable. In the past year a number of celebrities have sued News Group Newspapers for unlawful information gathering, however NGN successfully cornered most claimants into accepting a settlement. Hugh Grant speaking out about the possibility of being liable for nearly £10 million in legal fees even if he won his case, sparking fears that NGN would never be brought to trial. However, after settling with over 1,300 people, NGN lost against Prince Harry’s claim.
Prince Harry has been somewhat of a fanatic for suing the press as of late, successfully suing the Mirror prior to the NGN case and due to go to trial against the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday next year. As infallible as those who grace our screens and magazines may appear to us, the fact that a former member of the Royal Family was the only claimant who felt secure enough to proceed to trial against NGN speaks volumes as to the power of the press. Harry, though, presents a curious case, whereby his life prior to leaving the Royal Family was dependent on letting the public (at least somewhat) into his life, and now, after ‘fleeing the spotlight’ their new way of life seems to include inviting Netflix cameras into their home. One cannot help but feel a little bit aggrieved that he is the beacon for celebrity privacy rights.
One of the fundamental principles of stardom is the sacrifice of one’s privacy, to open their lives for public consumption and in return hope to gain masses of adoring fans.
Can, once given away, a celebrity reclaim their right to privacy at the expense of the press’ freedom of expression?
In order to consider this, I must state that a line must be drawn between phone hacking and other unlawful methods of information gathering and celebrities lamenting the press intrusion into their lives.
The advent of social media and reality television has created a new kind of celebrity: one that does not merely share their life as an unintended result of their job, but who’s job is entirely based on sharing their life. Unlike the traditional celebrity, who’s willing sacrifice of privacy may be limited to wedding or pregnancy announcements, those who find fame through the likes of Love Island open up to the world their entire life, being recorded for every moment. An unspoken arrangement emerges between this new celebrity and their audience, a parasocial relationship built on the expectation that they be entirely transparent.
When celebrities are complainants of a violation of privacy this generally involves the publication of private facts, or intrusion/trespass, however, reality TV stars choose to share their private facts and are perfectly aware of audio and visual recording devices ‘intruding’ into their lives to create the show. This is a consequence of the generation of ‘celebrity’ reality TV, a purpose of the show and intention of the participant is to produce a celebrity, a practice so widely established that there is now a customer base for reality TV consultants for those who intend to find stardom in this manner.
Once the high of potential fame has worn off, there are a growing number of former reality TV participants who wish to sue the broadcasters. Most of the cases so far involve instances of inappropriate work environments (hardly surprising in a business built off exposing heightened emotions and drama for public consumption) but a recurring theme is the inclusion of arbitration clauses. Such clauses limit a potential claimant’s ability to bring a case to trial, for example in Abruzzo v. Bravo Media Productions LLC in the USA the claims could not be brought to trial and instead had to be settled by arbitration. Although supposedly neutral, Amanda Cort points out the difficulty in ensuring a truly neutral arbitrator, when a decision against the major broadcaster could, at the very least, result in their services not being employed by that same broadcaster again.
None of the cases limited by arbitration clauses as of yet have been against broadcasters for the invasion of privacy, and unlikely ever will be due to the extreme ways in which reality TV contracts limit rights, participants signing away their privacy for the duration of their time on the show. However, as a further bar to bringing a claim to court, such clauses impose another limit on potential complainant’s right to privacy.
Furthermore, with the age of social media there is no telling how far the invasion of privacy may go once the participant becomes public property by virtue of being on the show.
There is an argument to say that everyone with social media is a part of the press themselves, posting, sharing, reposting and commenting on the lives of celebrities. To the more extreme end normal bystanders writing blind-items (gossip about a celebrity, hinting at their identity) after seeing celebrities in public can spiral into news articles of celebrity breakups, pregnancies and every other rumour possible.
Like the contracts signed by reality TV participants, one could argue that the very nature of being a celebrity requires their right to privacy to be limited in exchange for the freedom of expression that made them a household name in the beginning. However, when everyone with a phone is a potential informant, maybe it is time to think about enshrining the right to privacy more securely in our law. If such a step were to be taken, the ability of the press to engage in their more ‘borderline’ information gathering practices would also be limited.
Comments