Supermodel Naomi Campbell has issued a writ against the Mirror newspaper, claiming that the paper has infringed her privacy.
|
On 1 Feburary 2001 the newspaper published a grainy photograph of her allegedly emerging from a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, and headlined it: 'Naomi: I am a drug addict.' Campbell's lawyers intend to use the new Human Rights Act to claim damages.
|
The supermodel is one of many celebrities going public about their privacy rights. In recent years Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others, have voiced their concerns about needing extra privacy protection from the media. As Campbell's PR company explained to The Sunday Times (London) last week, 'Naomi has decided to come out fighting because she feels an important principle is at stake. That is the right of celebrities who are having some form of medical treatment - be it for drugs or drink or bulimia - to have anonymity during their treatment'.
|
But how far should celebrities be able to protect their privacy?
|
Whatever the truth about the Mirror's claims about Naomi Campbell and drugs, surely it is difficult to legislate against photographing people in a public place, like the street? You or I may not make a living out of standing in the cold waiting to photograph the rich and famous, but plenty of people would find it odd if they were not entitled to use their mini-cam or Canon camera to record the world around them. Should Dixons, for example, sell its photographic and video equipment with warnings about restrictions concerning when and where it can be used when you're out and about?
|
Plenty of celebrities complain about media harassment when publicity about their lives is not to their liking. However, media organisations now recognise that those deemed too vulnerable for publicity require special protection. After all, not all of us are subject to 24-7 scrutiny from the paparazzi or videorazzi.
|
So the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice, for example, warns against intruding into the lives of those suffering from 'grief or shock', children, patients in hospitals, victims of sexual assault, and photographing 'individuals in private places without their consent', especially where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Now it seems that those appearing to seek therapy may be added to the list of those considered 'vulnerable', too.
|
 | | Should we take what celebrities say about themselves at face value? |
|
There are already plenty of laws that protect people's privacy. Breaking and entering somebody's house, or breaching a confidentiality agreement, for instance, are criminal offences. Yet Campbell's crusade for celebrities advances the idea of protection way beyond prohibitions on, for example, the physical invasion of a photographer inside a rehab clinic.
|
She seems to be arguing that even if a celebrity is in a public place, their image cannot be photographed when they are ill or feel vulnerable at a particular time. But even if you considered that Campbell's argument is legitimate, how is anybody supposed to know when a celebrity feels or is ill? Campbell was, in fact, photographed smiling - although the Mirror did claim to have known she had 'been a regular at counselling sessions for three months'.
|
Another aspect of Campbell's claim is the idea that celebrities should have 'anonymity during their treatment'. As she says, 'anonymity is fundamental to the recovery process. It reduced the shame of addiction, allowing the patient to enter a safe environment and be themselves without fear of exposure'. One can acknowledge that publicity or media harassment during a sensitive period in therapy may be a problem. But it also needs to be acknowledged that Campbell's demand seems odd, when this month's Vogue front cover features the supermodel, and when she is also about to promote a new perfume.
|
Isn't it fair enough for those who earn millions from promoting themselves, their products and their lifestyles, to have aspects of their lives talked about and questioned - or are we always supposed to take what celebrities say about themselves at face value?
|
Plenty of celebrities volunteer intimate details about their addictions, such as alcoholism (comedian Caroline Aherne) or drug abuse (singer Robbie Williams), anyway. This does not necessarily mean that all celebrities are willing participants in this culture of celebrity confessionalism; some still wish to keep their problems private. It does mean, however, that addiction is increasingly an issue of public interest.
|
Curbing the media won't stop the circulation of ideas; if a story is of interest - for whatever reason - gossip, the exchange of email and celebrity websites will ensure the story gets out somewhere. Surely a more interesting issue to address is why we are so obsessed with trivia, addiction and people's private lives in the first place?
Tessa Mayes is a journalist and the editor of Disclosure: Media Freedom and the Privacy Debate After Diana, published by the LIRE media group, 1998.
Read on:
A princely approach to privacy, by Tessa Mayes
No privacy in public?, by Tessa Mayes
spiked-issue: Privacy
|
