Free speech and the court of public opinion: let the people decide

Thursday February 4, 2010

John Terry’s “crime” was not cheating on his wife, says Suzy Dean, but trying to gag the press using a “super-injunction”

The shocking thing about the John Terry case is not that Terry cheated on his wife with another player’s then-girlfriend. It is not even that his lover allegedly aborted their child. What is shocking is that Terry was able to gag the press using a ‘super-injunction’ from reporting on his story. How did it come to be that a very rich individual, some lawyers and a High Court judge acquired the power to rule on what the press can publish and by extension what the public can read? This is a dangerous trend which undermines free speech and adult rationality, the basis of our democracy.

The first super-injunction was taken out following the death of Princess Diana on the basis that personal privacy was being invaded and freedom of expression ‘misused to invade the private life of public figures’. Last year, the oil trading firm Trafigura stopped a parliamentary question by Labour MP Paul Farrelly being reported by the Guardian. Over the last decade a growing number of celebrities, such as Naomi Campbell, have made use of the super-injunctions in the name of privacy.

The right to privacy is often posed as a ‘counter argument’ to the right of the press to report freely. But this is not as it seems. Terry’s privacy was ultimately breached by the individual who sold the story, not the press. It is that individual with whom Terry should take issue. Responding to a personal breach of privacy by gagging the press ultimately removes people’s right to decide what is and is not acceptable reporting and their ability to judge what they do and do not want to read. A legal filter like the super-injunction takes adults for children who should not have access to a free flow of information. Rather, the courts know better than us and should decide what we consume.

Appetite

Sleazy sex scandal pieces are undoubtedly a sign of low journalistic standards and the obsession with celebrity that has come to dominate the public sphere. From the gossip columns of The Sun to Perez Hilton, a site dedicated to revealing up-to-the-minute celebrity scandal, there is undoubtedly an appetite for the personal as well as the professional lives of the rich and famous. The story of Terry’s love life is just one example.

However it is the salacious interest in his love life that should be challenged. Individuals should not be judged by their personal rather than their professional conduct. This is a social and cultural issue and not one that should be ducked by infringing press freedom.

We should not accept restrictions on the freedom of press so readily. Journalists are individuals who are expressing something that they would like to say. When we accept restrictions on what the press can say we accept restrictions on what we can say. Very quickly, we are all subject to censored communication in terms of what we can say and what we are hearing.

The Terry case and others of its kind have left it up to the judiciary to decide who can and cannot have freedom of speech. This both side-steps the debate we need to have about private and public boundaries and closes the door on the public who should ultimately decide upon what is and is not acceptable. By allowing the rich to buy their privacy, gossipy – or crap – journalism goes unchallenged and freedom of speech is undermined. Neither is a good thing.

Suzy Dean is a writer and journalist and co-founder of To The Point Manifesto