Privacy and Obscenity: After defamation, privacy has become one of the biggest legal issues for journalists, an evolving area of law that has seen many changes worldwide. What does a “right to privacy” mean and does it exist in Hong Kong and elsewhere? What is the status of regulations and proposals that aim at such journalistic practices as hidden cameras, secretly taped telephone calls, ambush interviews and trespassing? What is “breach of confidence” and how does that fit into privacy concepts? Complicating the privacy question are the often overlapping issues involving obscenity, particularly with the ease and proliferation of the online posting of private images. How do these issues affect the media, particularly as they cover controversies involving these sensitive topics?
Readings:
Primary:
·         Privacy (Chapter 6); Print and Online Regulation and Self-Regulation (Chapter 11), pp. 207-220; Court Reporting and Contempt of Court, “Statutory reporting restrictions,” (Chapter 4) pp. 78-85, Hong Kong Media Law

 *Shooting Stars: Privacy Claims in the UK (Appendix II), International Libel & Privacy Handbook
·         Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (see Hong Kong Media Law, Appendix A, pp 297-301) and Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinances (Cap 390)(See Appendix A, pp. 258-264)
·         Stephenson and Kwan, “Pornography…on Internet,” Cyberlaw in Hong Kong, 3d ed., pp. 131-137 (2007)
·         Weisenhaus, “Hong Kong’s data scandals prompt reform calls,” Privacy Laws & Business (2008) and “Hong Kong Tests the Bounds of Decency,” Far Eastern Economic Review (2008)
·           Consultation document on Review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, http://www.coiao.gov.hk/en/consultation_doc.htm and JMSC submission
 

Supplementary:
·         Report on Civil Liability for Invasion of Privacy, Law Reform Commission, Dec. 2004, http://www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/publications/rprivacy.htm
·         Report on Privacy and Media Intrusion, Law Reform Commission, Dec. 2004, http://www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/publications/rmedia.htm

 ·        “Privacy,” Chapter 2, First Amendment Handbook http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/index.html and Photographers Guide to Privacy, http://www.rcfp.org/pullouts/photographers/index.php
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (U.S.)  “California’s new anti-paparazzi laws,” Michael Cameron, Inforrm blog, 13 April 2011

Case Studies:
Privacy
·         Eastweek v. Privacy Commissioner 2000 (first case of judicial review of exercise of power by the HK Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data)
·         Naomi Campbell v. MGN 2004 (U.K .House of Lords)(“misuse of private information”)

*       Douglas v Hello! 2007, 2005 (UK)(privacy of celebrities, post-Campbell)

·         Von Hannover v. Germany 2004 (European Court on Human Rights)(Princess Caroline case, privacy expectations in public places)(ECHR summary of case)

*        Mosley v News Group 2008 (UK, ECHR)(Spectre of punitive damages? “Max Mosley takes privacy fight to European court in Strasbourg,” The Guardian, 9 Nov 2009) “Max Mosley’s campaign reaches Strasbourg (European court could force newspapers to warn individuals before writing about their private lives,” The Guardian,  4 January 2011

Google execs convicted in Italy (2010) Liptak, “When American and European Ideas of Privacy Collide,” New York Times, 26 Feb 2010

“Google convictions in Italy based on legal error, says expert,” (2010) www.out-law.com

“Content or hosting provider? Google decision examines data processing law,” www.internationallawoffice.com, April 29, 2010 (very good analysis/briefing of the Italian court’s decision)

“Was the News of the World expose on the Duchess of York justified in law?” The Guardian, 25 May 2010

Right to be forgotten online? EU ponders law.

“We have no right to be forgotten online,” The Guardian, 18 March 2011, and “Europe’s highest court to rule on Google privacy battle in Spain,” The Guardian 1 March 2011; “Spain v Google: Citizens Can Have Unflattering Links Deleted,” Time, 20 April 2011

“EU privacy law will extend to US social networks, vows Commissioner,” Out-law news, March 17, 2011

Obscenity
·         Three Weekly v Obscene Articles Tribunal (Court of Appeal, 2007) (Carina Lau case)
·         Ming Pao and the Chinese University student sex survey (2007-2008)(Ming Pao v. Obscene Articles Tribunal 2008 (Court of First Instance)(“Court quashes university sex articles ruling,” The Standard, 22 Oct 2008)
·         Edison Chen celebrity photo scandal 2008