Can Ned RocknRoll's facebook pictures really be called "private"?

Cat's already out of the bag.

Pictures of Ned RocknRoll taken at a private party were on Facebook for two and half years for all the world - and particularly James Pope’s 1,500 Facebook "friends" - to see. I understand that The Sun found them on a trawl of publicly-viewable Facebook pages. So how can they possibly now be considered private?

To find out we must await publication of Mr Justice Briggs’ reasoning, expected in nine days’ time, for his decision yesterday to uphold an interim privacy injunction first granted last week.

The Sun has paid the price for going to RocknRoll in advance of publication for a comment on 2 January.

The result was for Pope to take the photos down and for RocknRoll, after previously apparently voicing no objection to them being visible to anyone with a computer and the inclination to search for them, has deemed them to be private.

The Sun argued that they were in the public interest because RocknRoll was a public figure after marrying the actress Kate Winslet and because he had sold photographs of a previous wedding to Hello! Magazine.

To take a proper view on whether publication is in the public interest one would need to know exactly what it was RocknRoll was doing that he is now so keen to hide.

But it seems to me that in this case the public interest argument is probably a bit thin and in any case irrelevent.

Newspapers and broadcasters regularly publish all manner of material which cannot remotely be said to fulfil any legal definition of the ‘public interest’. They would be very dry publications and news programmes if they purely confined themselves to material which was deemed to serve some public good.

So the question with Ned RocknRoll isn’t whether publication was in the public interest, but whether the pics constituted a breach of his privacy.

After being viewed by up to 1,500 Facebook "friends", and many more people on the wider internet besides, I would argue that the cat was out of the bag on that one and privacy doesn’t come into it.

Copyright is another question, not the subject of last week’s injunction.

But it is worth noting that when you publish a photograph on a publicly-viewable Facebook page – Facebook’s own terms and conditions are  very clear in warning that you are making it public property.

They state: “When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”

This case isn't going to become a touchstone for press freedom. As far as I'm concerned RocknRoll could have daubed himself in pigs' blood and proclaimed his eternal loyalty to Satan at that fancy dress party two years ago and it would be his own affair and nothing to do with me (he didn't, I'm just making a point).

But once pictures have been viewed more than a thousand times online without complaint, can they really still be considered "private"?

This blog first appeared on Press Gazette

Ned RocknRoll recently marries Kate Winslet. Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Getty
Show Hide image

The internet was supposed to liberate us - let’s claim our freedom

This week the Women's Equality Party launches an e-Quality campaign against online bullying and harassment in all of its forms.

Yesterday – a sunny, energetic day in our office - someone appeared on our website, wrote that he would like to “rape all the sluts” in the Women’s Equality Party, and signed off again.

Our team of female staff read his comment, deleted it and continued working.

If we paused at every message like this, we’d never get any work done. Facing up to daily abuse might not have been formally included in my job description – or in that of our administrative officer, or our digital officer, or any other member of WE staff. But it has swiftly become part of our daily duty, nevertheless.

The abuse has heightened as our party grows. Wearying perhaps, but also a reflection of the space we now occupy on the political scene. After the fantastic results of our first election in May – when the Women’s Equality Party won more than 300,000 votes in London alone – WE provoked as much rage in some quarters as jubilation in others.

Since May we have been pressed to say what we will do next. All of those questions focused on which election we would next fight.

Our next move in fact was to prepare our submission for the Women and Equalities Select Committee inquiry into sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools. Evidence submitted to that inquiry showed the torrent of sexual abuse that young girls now face in school, including pressure to take and send sexual images that are sometimes shared widely without their consent.

Women’s rights offline have a long way to go. Women’s rights online are practically non-existent, and worse, there is an even more ingrained acceptance that this is just the way it is.

So this week WE launch our next fight for women’s rights: our e-Quality campaign against online bullying and harassment in all of its forms. We’re focusing on revenge porn because if we can get that faulty and ineffective one-year-old law rightly focused on consent and compensation, we can set a template for wider use.

Later this year we will be rolling out a national campaign for mandatory sex and relationships education in all schools; we refuse to accept the government’s opposition to this vital tool that can help end violence against women and girls.

No, it’s not the Tooting by-election that many people expected us to contest. But politics doesn’t just happen in Parliament. It happens in our communities and in our homes and in our schools.

And we want to do politics differently. We will always be looking to engage in electoral contests. But we are also looking for other ways to empower people to take action and build the broadest possible movements for change.

So with this in mind we are calling on all parties of all sizes to work on this with us - and we are optimistic as we initiate those conversations they will bear fruit.

Later this week Yvette Cooper and a group of politicians will re-launch their campaign to reclaim the Internet for women. WE are delighted to hear this and extend to them for inclusion in that campaign the specific policies that today we are unveiling:

  • To refocus UK law on revenge porn on whether the victim gave consent, rather than primarily on the perpetrator’s intention to cause distress
  • To give victims of revenge porn recourse to civil law in order to seek justice and compensation not just from the perpetrator but also from the website operators that repost non-consensual porn for profit
  • To construct digital legislation that adequately protects against online abuse and harassment in all its forms and particularly recognizes the double discrimination faced by BME women, disabled women and LGBT+ women.
  • To build equality into technology and the forces that police it by increasing the numbers of women in both fields.

The Women’s Equality Party was established with the aim of doing politics creatively. WE showed in May’s elections that we have earned the right to be heard. Now WE are asking all of the other parties to listen to our voters, set party politics aside and ensure urgently-needed protections for women and girls online.

You can read more about the campaign here. To support equal rights for women online, tweet your support with the hashtag #CtrlAltDelete so that women’s voices are no longer controlled, modified and deleted online.

Sophie Walker is leader of the Women's Equality Party.