The current privacy / super injunctions debate makes fascinating reading.  But I find it difficult to support the media’s moral crusading and triumphalism (some, not all of the media).  Add MPs potentially abusing parliamentary privilege and tweets declaring success for ‘free speech’ and you have a potent rhetoric that has the potential to skew the substance of the debate.  What we are talking about here are two principles enshrined in human rights law: the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private and family life.  It is the balance between the two that should be at the heart of an informed and thoughtful debate, including how such principles should be supported and protected in a media environment that has changed drastically over the last decade. 

The government has belatedly announced that a joint committee of MPs will now examine privacy law.  Let’s hope that they can deliver a considered set of recommendations, as what we have now is a free-for-all.  Do MPs, or those online have a right to disregard the law because they disagree with a judgement?  Is this a victory for ‘free speech’ or the equivalent of mob rule?  For those countries that have no free speech protections, an unseemly tussle over the public’s right to know about the sex life of a footballer has the potential to make a mockery of what many are fighting for.   Indeed, it says much about the tabloidization of media and society that The Sun newspaper, a football player and a former reality TV contestant are testing such fundamental principles. Where were the campaigns following the Trafigura super injunction?  This is where the real test should have been  - a worthy cause that lacked an essential ingredient – sex.  I fear that we are being naïve if we believe that the media crying foul in this particular case is anything other than to protect and promote commercial interests.  

I am a supporter of free speech and privacy.  It is extraordinarily difficult to balance the two and I hope that the discussions that follow this debacle will be considered, focusing on what is genuinely in the public interest, rather than what the public is interested in – two different things. These rights were hard won. They deserve respect.