Help navigation
- Saturday, 25 May
Log in to TheBookseller.com
News
-
RELATED STORIES
-
Amazon to launch commercial fan fiction platform
Amazon Publishing has annou...
-
First Edition auction raises £439K
The auction of 50 first edi...
-
New role for Rausing in Granta restructure
Granta proprietor and publi...
-
Macmillan Education in ELT partnership with Knewton
Macmillan Education has ann...
-
Bakker's The Detour wins Independent Foreign Fiction Prize
Dutch writer Gerbrand Bakke...
Leveson: PEN warning on privacy as Rowling gives evidence
01.01.70 | Lisa Campbell
English PEN has prepared a written submission to the Leveson inquiry, warning that if tough new privacy laws are brought in as a result of the phone-hacking scandal they could have a damaging effect on freedom of expression.
Meanwhile author J K Rowling is giving evidence about her experiences of press intrusion to the high court inquiry this afternoon. English PEN director Jonathan Heawood said the organisation was watching the progress of the inquiry, chaired by Mr Justice Leveson, very closely. "Like everyone, we're shocked by the stories of intrusion and harassment that are emerging but we're very concerned about the impact of tough new privacy laws on publishers, booksellers and authors," he said. "We've seen how imbalanced libel law has become and we don't want to repeat the same mistake with a
privacy law that could stifle memoirs, biographies, and other works of contemporary non-fiction, and could affect fiction too."
PEN's submission to the inquiry addresses the role of a press regulator and also the nature of public interest, exploring how the term - often understood to relate to the worlds of politics, business and finance - can also be considered to apply to the freedom of people to write about their private life.
Rowling's testimony thus far has focused on her efforts to maintain the privacy of her children and family life. Rowling told the inquiry that she had spoken out about personal areas of her life because: "As a writer, your life becomes such an important factor in your work . . . I think our cultural life would be severely diminished if people aren’t able to talk
about where they get their ideas from."
When speaking about having long-lens shots taken by paparazzi while on holiday, Rowling said: “To call a spade a spade, I’m a writer, so I don’t think it’s of any public interest what I look like in a swimsuit.”
TheBookseller
-
OFT clears OUP-Nelson Thornes acquisition - The Office of Fair Trading has cleared the acquisition of Nelson Thorn... t.co/mvk5Lx8n0c
-
News Corporation: new division approved - The division of News Corporation, the parent company of publisher Harper... t.co/Ne79foiX4x
-
OFT clears OUP-Nelson Thornes acquisition: The Office of Fair Trading has cleared the... t.co/oS7URalW0J
©2012 Bookseller Media Ltd rights reserved.
Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say
By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first | Readers' most recommended
It's a difficult issue - on the one hand many biographers can imply sleazy and untrue things about their subjects (including accusing them of murder) and on the other celebrities can earn a living out of portraying themselves as 'nice' when they're no such thing.
I think if your life relates directly to your work then it should be discussed - but if it doesn't - then it shouldn't.
How they fairly draw those lines though - I don't know.
But the issue is HOW the information is obtained! Is it okay to hack phones when it leads to info in the public's interest yet has a nasty side-effect of causing a frantic parent to think their child is alive when in fact s/he is dead (just to get a scoop and sell more copy)?
No, freedom of information is one thing, criminal invasion of privacy is another thing entirely and should be stamped out.
If people are buying these tabloids, then the 'public interest' is clearly there.
'Public interest' is not the same thing as 'the public is interested'.
Mark Fisher
I think you have failed to understand the distinction between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public".
@Mak you're right it's all about process, not content. The law's got to be able to distinguish between private information that someone's publishing because it was their life too (i.e. a family memoir; an autobiography; or a biography that includes interviews with the key players) and information that has been obtained through surveillance, harrassment or blackmail. It's not hard to do. But at the moment, privacy law is purely focused on the harmful nature of the content, which could be used against stories that upset people, but nonetheless need to be told: think of all the great memoirs over the years that have upset the apple cart.
It's a difficult issue - on the one hand many biographers can imply sleazy and untrue things about their subjects (including accusing them of murder) and on the other celebrities can earn a living out of portraying themselves as 'nice' when they're no such thing.
I think if your life relates directly to your work then it should be discussed - but if it doesn't - then it shouldn't.
How they fairly draw those lines though - I don't know.
But the issue is HOW the information is obtained! Is it okay to hack phones when it leads to info in the public's interest yet has a nasty side-effect of causing a frantic parent to think their child is alive when in fact s/he is dead (just to get a scoop and sell more copy)?
No, freedom of information is one thing, criminal invasion of privacy is another thing entirely and should be stamped out.
If people are buying these tabloids, then the 'public interest' is clearly there.
'Public interest' is not the same thing as 'the public is interested'.
Mark Fisher
I think you have failed to understand the distinction between "in the public interest" and "of interest to the public".
@Mak you're right it's all about process, not content. The law's got to be able to distinguish between private information that someone's publishing because it was their life too (i.e. a family memoir; an autobiography; or a biography that includes interviews with the key players) and information that has been obtained through surveillance, harrassment or blackmail. It's not hard to do. But at the moment, privacy law is purely focused on the harmful nature of the content, which could be used against stories that upset people, but nonetheless need to be told: think of all the great memoirs over the years that have upset the apple cart.