ロンドン＝ユニバーシティ＝カレッジ (UCL) の教授、エリック・バレント(Eric Barendt)は、言論の自由とプライバシーの間のデリケートなバランスについて語る。
言論の自由とプライバシーはともに基本的人権だ。世界人権宣言 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) や欧州人権条約 (European Convention on Human Rights) のような国際条約に限らず、多くの国で憲法上保障されている人権だ。言論の自由とプライバシー権の間にはどのような相互関係があるのか。
一般的に、言論の自由とプライバシーは、対立関係にあるとされる。例えば、タブロイド紙やブロガーが、セレブの私生活（特に親密な性生活）など、多くの人々に知られたくない情報について暴露する時だ。言論の自由を保障するためには、プライバシーが必要だ。セレブの友人や恋人たちは、自らの会話がこっそり聞かれ、政府の情報機関で録音されたりマスコミで暴露されないという保証がない限り、自由にコミュニケーションをとることができない。政治的な会話でさえプライバシーを要求する場合もある。公務員、大臣や連立政党同士が、政策立案に関するデリケートな会話をするとき、彼らはそれらの会話を公衆に発表したくないかもしれない。例えばドイツの連邦憲法裁判所のように、こうした政策に関する会話内容はプライバシーの問題として認めるべきであると主張している。
プライバシーと言論の自由の間の葛藤は、いかに解明するべきか。法律は、こうした論争が起きた場合、両者を完全に守るのは不可能だ。思うに、場合によって、言論の自由の重大さをはかり、プライバシーの重大さと見比べて、もし言論の自由のほうが大切だという結論に至れば、プライバシーを犠牲にすればよいのである。もし、言論の内容（例えば新聞記事やブログ）が重要な政治的、社会的議論に関わり、対して個人の私生活の詳細（例えば、セレブの好きな食べ物や、セレブがいつどこのディナー・パーティーでどんなドレスを着ていたかなど）を記述していない場合は、言論の自由はプライバシーに勝る。しかし、記事がセレブの性的生活や医療記録に関わるような情報を漏らすならば、プライバシーが勝る。なぜならば、このような暴露が、重要なパブリック・ディベートに貢献するとはいえないからである。
もちろん、この分野の議論は難しい点がいくつもある。政治家が公務につく場合、どれだけのプライバシーを犠牲にするのか。例えばタブロイド紙が、政治家が大学時代に麻薬をやった事実を暴露し、投票者は議席獲得を目指す政治家の道徳的な経歴を知らされるべきだ、といってそうした過去の暴露を正当化するとしたら、どう反応すべきなのか。一方でよほど無頓着な者以外、ほとんどの人が公務に足を踏み入れたがらず、また道徳的に完璧な人などほとんどいないからと言って、政治家のプライバシー権を主張することができるだろうか。わたし個人としては、プライバシーを保護するためなら、偽善的行為もある程度許されると思う。例えば見知らぬ人に対して、例え医者に重病を宣告されたとしても、あるいはパートナーが去ったとしても、「我々は健康そのものです」と言うのが一般的だろう。プライバシー権は我々に、誰にどのような情報を与えるのかという選択肢を与えるのだ。
過去数年の間、イギリスの裁判所はマスコミに、セレブの私生活を侵害し、パブリック・ディベートに貢献しないような情報を報道しないよう命じている。なかでも目に余るのは、サッカー選手の試合外の生活を暴露する報道だ。しかしこうした通達が出ても問題は残る。というのもこうした通達は、ブロガーやツィッターでのコメントにも適応されうるのか疑問だからだ。多くの場合、サッカー選手の名前や試合外の生活を暴露するのはブロガーやツィッターユーザーである。ブロガーは言論の自由をネット上で謳歌でき、 一方でマスコミもそうした情報はネット上に存在するのだからもはやパブリック・ドメインにあると主張できる。もう一つの問題は、こうした言論の自由とプライバシー権をめぐる議論について、その判断を裁判所や英国報道苦情処理委員会 (UK Press Complaints Commission) に委ねるべきか否かという点である。裁判所での訴訟手続きを行うには、数千ポンドはかかる。一般にはとても手の届かない額である。しかしこうした問題を抱えたまま、プライバシーの権利を完全に放棄するのは賢明でない。プライバシー抜きでは、個人の自律性と他者との親密性が失われてしまうからだ。
―エリック・バレント
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.