ANOTHER VOICE
Does the public have a right to be titillated or should there be a law against it?
AUBERON WAUGH
There are excellent reasons why fox- hunting should not be forbidden, the best being that many people enjoy it, but I have never been particularly impressed by the argument that the foxes also enjoy it. There is no reason why foxes should be consulted, and it is an impertinence for them to express an opinion. A similar argument might well apply to Muscovites, who appear resentful of any attempt to relieve the oppression under which they have lived, with one short intermission, for the last 800 years or so. They are reported to be furious at proposals for a relaxation of the 1961 criminal code, which punishes foreign currency dealings and other 'eco- nomic crimes' by the firing squad. Howev- er, so secretive is Russian society that practically nobody knows what the 1961 criminal code involves. Although its offi- cially published price is 1.5 roubles (£1.50) it is not generally available and now changes hands at the black-market price of 50 roubles (£50) a copy.
If they cannot be trusted to know even about the laws which oppress them, it is scarcely surprising that few Russians have shown any inclination to be informed on such vital matters as Mrs Gorbachev's knickers — whether she prefers them frilly or plain. Good socialists would probably argue that the Russians have no need to be diverted by such trivia, living proper lives, as they do, in an environment which a number of earnest and intelligent people like ourselves is constantly trying to im- prove. The only question is whether the working class of the capitalist world, tor- mented by government spending cuts and. ground down by the cynical exploitation of multi-national employers, has any right to seek refuge from its suffering in specula- tion about the knickers of Mrs Thatcher and Mrs Reagan. Might not such activities have a progressive result, or are they to be condemned as a new opium of the masses, diverting them from their duty to analyse the socio-economic foundation of their society?
The balance of progressive opinion would appear to be that the working class has no business to speculate about the underwear of its betters. When one con- templates one's own circumstances, one can see that there is a strong case to be made for a right to privacy, such as exists in France, Austria and one or two other countries. By this I do not mean, of course, that I have particularly interesting underwear, merely that I can well under- stand the feelings of those who, being particularly privileged in one way or another, feel their privileges should be extended to forbid any idle gossip or revelation about their intimate lives.
There are many good reasons for a law guaranteeing privacy, many of them elo- quently argued by Clare Dyer in the Sunday Times this week in response to the problems of Anne Diamond with her nanny, Debbie Smithers. Debbie sold all the secrets of life in the love-nest shared by Diamond, her lover, called 'Mike' Holling- sworth and their eight-week old baby, called Oliver, to the Sun, which started publishing them in Wednesday's early edi- tions until prevented from doing so by a High Court injunction granted over the telephone by a judge from his home.
This Dial-An-Injunction service is some- thing quite new in the history of the legal profession's ancient struggle to keep the press in order, but there is nothing new in the law by which it was sought. The law on confidence prevents a servant from divulg- ing what he or she has learned in the course of his service, unless it is in the public interest to do so. The public interest was traditionally taken to involve some revela- tion of iniquity, but more recently Sir John Donaldson has held that it might be in the public interest to reveal anti-social con- duct.
However, there is plenty of precedent for judges refusing to protect the privacy of pop stars and suchlike people. As Lord Denning memorably observed in Daily Mirror vs Tom Jones, Engelbert Humper- dinck and Gilbert O'Sullivan:
If people of this kind seek publicity which is to their advantage, it seems to me that they cannot complain if a servant or employee of theirs is persuaded that there is another side to their image whch in the public interest should be known.
This ruling might easily have applied to the case of Anne Diamond, who was prepared to delight television viewers with a glimpse of her love-child within eight days of its birth, but successfuly sought an ex-parte injunction to prevent us pursuing our curiosity about the child and its cir- cumstances.
On the alternative principle, as Clare Dyer pointed out, Soraya Khashoggi lost a bid in 1980 to prevent her former house- keeper revealing details about her sex life. The judges decided it was not practically possible to distinguish between a criminal offence and allegations of 'sexual miscon- duct'.
All of which leads Clare Dyer to ask what public interest other than titillation can be served by revealing how Soraya Khashoggi spends her leisure hours, or why entertainers who seek publicity should be less protected against disloyal servants or spouses than, for instance, the royal family. So far as she is concerned, it all adds up to an overwhelming case for a new law to enforce private citizens' rights of privacy. 'The public figure who accidental- ly drops his diary has no redress against the passer-by who picks it up and sells the contents, though publication may wreck his reputation, marriage or career.'
It seems churlish to use all Clare Dyer's homework and knowledge of the subject, which I have shamelessly borrowed, to make the opposite point. Any public figure who carries a diary whose contents, if known, might wreck his reputation, mar- riage or career has only himself to blame if the contents get out. We all have guilty consciences, in one way or another, but it is absurd to expect the law to protect them for us. The fault surely lies in a society which allows people's careers to be wreck- ed by revelations of this sort. There is a certain amount of pleasure to be derived from living dangerously, but nobody de- serves sympathy who goes whining and blubbing to lawyers if found out. It is only the existence of our press laws — of libel, confidence, copyright, contempt etc which gives credence to anything which appears in the gutter press. Take away these laws, and nobody would believe a word they read in the Sun, Star or News of the World, or attach any importance to it if they did. As Belloc nearly remarked about Lord Finchley, it is the business of the wealthy man to titillate the artisan.
Previous page
