Le professeur Eric Barendt de University College London discute de l’équilibre délicat entre la vie privée et la liberté d’expression.
La liberté d’expression et la vie privée sont toutes deux des droits fondamentaux qui sont reconnus de manière égale dans la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme, par des conventions telle que la Convention Européenne des Droits de l’Homme, ou encore des constitutions nationales. Mais quel rapport y a-t-il entre les deux?
L’on pense généralement que ces deux droits s’opposent, ce qui est parfois le cas, notamment lorsqu’un journal tabloïd ou un bloggeur cherche à révéler quelque chose qui relève de la vie privée d’une célébrité – particulièrement des détails intimes de se vie sexuelle – et que la célébrité en question préférerait les garder privés. Le respect de la vie privée est souvent nécessaire à la liberté d’expression. Deux personnes, qu’elles soient amies ou en couple, ne peuvent pas communiquer ouvertement l’une avec l’autre à moins d’être sûres que leur conversation ne va pas être écoutée et retenue par le gouvernement ou répétée dans un organe de presse. Même certaines conversations politiques ont besoin de confidentialité, comme lorsque des fonctionnaires et des ministres, ou encore des partenaires de coalition, discutent de politiques sensibles; il n’ont pas forcément envie de révéler – au moins dans l’immédiat – leurs conversations au grand public, et dans certaines cours de justice, notamment la Cour Constitutionnelle d’Allemagne, elles peuvent être protégées en tant qu’affaires confidentielles.
Mais comment peut-on résoudre des conflits entre le droit à la vie privée et celui à la liberté d’expression? La loi ne peut protéger les deux lorsque ces conflits émergent – ni l’un ni l’autre ne peut être entièrement protégé. Je pense que nous devons peser l’importance de notre parole au cas par cas contre l’importance de la vie privée qui serait sacrifiée pour la liberté d’expression. Si le discours – disons dans un article de journal ou un blog – contribue de manière conséquente à un débat politique ou social et ne porte pas atteinte aux détails importants de la vie privée d’une personne – disons qu’il mentionne en passant ses préférences diététiques ou sa tenue vestimentaire lors d’une soirée – la liberté d’expression devrait être prioritaire sur la vie privée. Mais si cet article révèle des détails intimes sur la vie sexuelle ou la santé d’une célébrité, la confidentialité devrait avoir le dessus, car il est difficile de voir comment ce genre de révélation peut contribuer à un débat public important.
Bien sur, il y a des problèmes clés dans ce domaine. Combien de sa vie privée une personnalité politique doit-elle sacrifier lorsqu’elle entre dans la vie publique? Supposons qu’un tabloïd publie qu’elle a pris des drogues à l’université et justifie cette publication par le droit des citoyens de connaitre le passé, sur le plan moral, de quelqu’un qui se présente comme candidat à l’Assemblée? En revanche, peut-on dire que même les politiciens ont droit à un minimum de vie privée, puisque cela pourrait décourager la plupart des gens, sauf les insensibles, et puisque très peut d’entre nous ont un passé qui ne risque pas d’être discrédité. Je pense qu’un certain niveau d’hypocrisie peut être justifié en tant qu’élément essentiel à la vie privée; nous sommes tous en droit de dire à des étrangers que nous sommes ‘en bonne forme’, même si nous venons d’apprendre que nous avons une maladie grave ou que notre partenaire veut mettre fin à notre relation. La vie privée donne le droit à tout le monde de contrôler quelles informations sont partagées et à qui elles sont divulguées.
Ces dernières années, les cours de justice en Angleterre ont dû fréquemment donner des ordres à la presse de ne pas publier certains articles qui avaient très peu d’intérêt pour le public et qui portaient atteinte à la vie privée de célébrités, particulièrement ceux qui cherchaient à révéler le comportement des footballeurs en dehors du terrain. Il nous vient alors la question difficile de savoir si ces ordres peuvent effectivement être étendu à twitter et aux bloggeurs qui publient le nom du footballeurs ou les détails de son comportement. Les bloggeurs peuvent réclamer leur liberté d’expression individuelle et la presse peut alors prétendre que comme l’histoire est déjà partout sur internet, elle fait maintenant parti du domaine public. Une autre question difficile consiste à déterminer si la résolution de ces conflits peut être laissée aux cours de justice ou bien si elle devrait être renvoyée vers une tribunal ou un organisme informel comme la ‘Press Complaints Commission’ au Royaume-Uni; obtenir une décision judiciaire coûte plusieurs milliers de livres, bien au dessus des moyens de la majorité de la population. Mais l’existence des ces problèmes ne devrait pas nous décourager et nous mener à abandonner nos droits à la vie privée, puisque sans leur protection nous perdrions beaucoup de notre autonomie individuelle et de notre intimité.
reply report Report comment
The difficulty with this discussion – in fact much of the discussion in this debate – is that freedom of speech tends to be treated as though it has a special status to which other rights are largely expected to accord.
In reality, freedom of speech is an important right, but there are others, and sometimes they will come into conflict. It follows that the status and value of free speech can only be sensibly discussed if one has a general framework for resolving conflicts of rights.
Reason tells us that there must either be a hierarchy of rights, with rules to resolve conflicts of rights of a similar order, or else all rights must be treated as being on the same plane, with our deciding conflicts of rights according to the circumstances of each case.
The difficulty presented by the latter approach is that rights cease to have any real value because they are not guaranteed of enforcement. It is also a manifestly deficient argumet because not all rights are equal. For example, the right to have a state funded university education, or the right to drive a car are clearly not on the same level as the right to not have one’s life taken, or the right to free speech.
In ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ Isaiah Berlin wrote that:
« The sense of privacy itself, of the area of personal relationships as something sacred in its own right, derives from a conception of freedom which, for all its religious roots, is scarcely older, in its developed state, than the Renaissance or the Reformation. Yet its decline would mark the death of a civilisation, of an entire moral outlook. »
Sadly much of the discussion of free speech to be found here assumes that the right to privacy should be limited to accommodate a broader right of freedom of speech.
Perhaps the converse approach might be preferred.
If we believe that freedom of speech, and privacy (the freedom to be left alone) are on the same level, then perhaps privacy should, as a general rule, prevail.
Berlin said as much when he argued that, « If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral. »
Surely the invasion of privacy, or the assault on individual dignity, which is implicit in many expansive conceptions of freedom of speech, can only result in the sort of misery Berlin feared.
Surely to key to resolving conflicts of equal rights is to be found in the manner in which they are exercised. If one right is actively exercised (that is, in such a fashion as to intrude on the rights of others), and a conflicting right is passively exercised, we must surely favour the passively exercised right over the actively exercised right.
The reasons for this are simple. A passively exercised right seeks to detract from none, to make no inroads on the liberty of others. It must be protected and preferred. Were we to do the contrary, then we would favour those who intrude on others, and we would ultimately pitch society into ceaseless conflict.
If one accepts this, then it is not the nature of the subject which should determine the extent (or limits) of free speech.
Perhaps we should look at other factors, such as whether we are truly dealing with the free advocacy of ideas, or merely an unfettered commentary on the lives of others.
reply report Report comment
I agree but to some extent. You have considered privacy and freedom of speech in case related to public figures. They do not comprise the whole state. I do not deny that these things don’t happen with them, but the majority should be given the priority first.
Points in which u have considered politicians should be given the privacy is considerable, but, I, explain it as,
They are elected just to serve their public, who choose him so he can listen to everyone and take a mutual decision in favor of everyone. he do needs the privacy just for a fixed period of time , so he can glance upon the subject and come up with either a good result or some genuine option. Now the point is that whether we have the right to speak freely and put our ideas in public, or the law is just I black and white.
Coming to the point of privacy. As our elders say that we live in a democratic state can put our ideas thinking and wish outside but that point should not create any problem for others. But critical cases are of public figures or so called celebrities , They do need the privacy but just in their personal life . Coming publically makes them the figure of public , they represent what public is, was or want to be ? So Privacy and freedom of speech, when considered in case of common people have a limit but when it is considered for public figure . After a certain time interval privacy should not be there. This is the ultimate base of many social problems which we are facing today. If privacy of public figures is made transparent then a lot of problems will be solved automatically.
At the end, I would just like to summaries that privacy is limited for somebody’s personal life and when it comes to public , it should be made transparent along with freedom of speech.
reply report Report comment
I sympathise with the views expressed here but recognise that once the cat is out of the bag it is out and cannot be put back. What is required is higher standards in those who have access to and control of sensitive personal information of people who are exposed to public scrutiny. It is true that nobody is perfect so a fitting reprisal for a person who decides to make public somebody else’s sensitive personal secrets might be to open up their private life to public scrutiny if it could be done. That should make people think twice before deciding what really is in the public interest should it not?
The point about the cost of legal action is well known and true but is it justified? Taxpayers have already paid for Her Majesty’s Court Service. Why are they charged again for making use of it? Is that not double taxation? What happened to the noble aims of access to justice? Why are solicitors permitted to ask for payment before they have done any work? If they are paid for the time taken they are free to extend that as they will as I have witnessed in action. Is it not time to examine and review the justification for these things? Why are solicitors permitted to treat their clients as if they cannot be trusted to pay bills? What plumber gets paid before doing the work?
What I suggest is missing is a moral compass as we have witnessed in the conduct of far too many members of what may be generally described as high society society receiving over generous payments from the public purse not to serve the public but deprive them of what is their due by corrupt practices, non disclosure of information they are entitled to receive but are refused it when requested. That is what the Freedom of Information Act was designed to rectify but more effort is being put into hiding information than disclosing it.
What part has been played by the Established Church of this country in setting the example of proper moral conduct and standards in society. I suggest it has not and is part of the problem.