NEW DEADLINE: Does case law suggest that the law in England and Wales strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and celebrities’ rights to privacy?

Does Case Law Suggest that the Law in England And Wales Strikes an Appropriate Balance Between Freedom of Expression and Celebrities' Rights to Privacy? By [Student Name] Course Professor's Name University Location of the University Date In an age of rapid technology breakthroughs and digital media, the delicate balance between freedom of expression and privacy, especially for celebrities, is increasingly precarious. Media and information dissemination platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have changed privacy expectations. As people navigate the digital age, challenges arise about privacy expectations and the legal system's ability to protect individual liberties. This critical analysis examines England and Wales case law to determine if it balances free speech and celebrity privacy. This paper examines media scrutiny and privacy rights debates using legal concepts, landmark cases, and scholarly viewpoints. It examines privacy law and its effects on individuals, media organisations, and society by systematically evaluating significant themes and concepts. The Social Media Effect on Privacy Expectations Social media has transformed privacy in the modern day. Social media sites like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have changed how society views privacy. It is vital to critically evaluate whether social media's pervasiveness makes privacy realistic nowadays. Personal information is now widely available due to social media. Campbell v MGN is a dramatic example of media intrusion and privacy. Naomi Campbell, a celebrated fashion model, disputed a newspaper's disclosure of her Narcotics Anonymous attendance. The House of Lords acknowledged media scrutiny of public figures but stressed the need to consider the impact on an individual's private life and protect personal space. Pervasive social media raises problems about whether people, especially public celebrities, may expect privacy. Celebrities' platforms, which provide them fame, also allow intrusion. In Mosley v News Group Newspapers, former FIA president Max Mosley sued a newspaper for publishing his private life. The court agreed that such exposure violates privacy rights, recognising the challenges of intrusive media tactics. The 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard from Campbell v MGN is pertinent in the social media age. This legal norm requires determining whether a person expects privacy in a particular circumstance. Celebrities may argue that continual online scrutiny precludes any reasonable expectation of privacy. This argument must be addressed in light of the potential harm to individuals when their private lives are exposed.[Ankit Kumar Jain, Somya Ranjan Sahoo and Jyoti Kaubiyal, “Online Social Networks Security and Privacy: Comprehensive Review and Analysis” (2021) 7 Complex & Intelligent Systems 2157 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-021-00409-7>.] [Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22 (HL) < https://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Campbell-v-MGN-HL-6-May-2004.pdf>.] [Mosley v News Group Newspapers [2008] EWHC 1777 < https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mosley-v-Associated-Newspapers-Ltd.pdf>] [Campbell v MGN [2004] UKHL 22 (HL)] In Richard v BBC, the court found that Sir Cliff Richard's home is an example of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' In the case, Sir Cliff Richard disputed the BBC's broadcasting of a raid by police on his house. The court established that Sir Cliff Richard has a valid claim to privacy under the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard. This decision stresses the subtle test and the need to safeguard privacy specifically for public figures. Social media complicates this landscape. On such platforms, user-generated content often amounts to intrusion into private life, presenting legal challenges. The ZXC v Bloomberg case examined social media privacy issues. The Supreme Court judgment underscores the need for robust legislative measures in dealing with present-day privacy concerns, including a tort of breach of privacy.' Such means that social media has a massive impact on what people expect from their personal lives. The test based on "reasonable expectation" needs to continue being used but also updated to counteract problems brought about by social media.[T Bennett and P Wragg, “Was Richard v BBC Correctly Decided” (2018) 23 Communications Law 151 <https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/20423/>.] [ZXC v Bloomberg [2022] UKSC 5 < https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0122-judgment.pdf>] 'Reasonable Expectation of Privacy' Test Privacy law largely relies on the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test concerning free speech and privacy. It is necessary to critically evaluate this legal requirement for balancing purposes to safeguard privacy rights. The 'reasonable expectation of privacy' test contributes immensely to this discourse by providing a logical structure for weighing privacy interests in different situations. The standard 'reasonable expectation of privacy' might be too vague and inconsistent. This standard is complex to use concerning people in public life, such as HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd. Famous individuals may have a lessened desire for seclusion because they are prominent but still benefit from other people's perspectives. By ruling favouring the Duchess of Sussex's private rights, it highlighted how difficult it is to balance freedom of expression with confidentiality.[HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch) < https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Sussex-v-Associated-News-judgment-021221.pdf>] The ' reasonable expectation of privacy' criteria may also fail to account for social media and digital technology dynamics. In today's hyper-connected society, people share much personal information online, blurring public and private. Social media platforms have allowed unprecedented access to private lives, threatening privacy norms. If subjective privacy expectations differ from societal norms, a more robust legal framework is necessary to defend privacy rights. The criteria may also unfairly favour specific parties. Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers addressed whether a professional footballer had a reasonable expectation of privacy over his private life. While the court considered public interest, it upheld the claimant's right to privacy, emphasising the necessity to balance free speech and privacy. This case underscores the need for a sophisticated approach to privacy regulation that considers each scenario. The question of whether a reasonable...