tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/mail-on-sunday-77015/articlesMail on Sunday – The Conversation2022-04-28T14:00:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1820922022-04-28T14:00:28Z2022-04-28T14:00:28ZAngela Rayner, porn in parliament and a depressing week for British politics<p>There are more women in the UK parliament and government than <a href="https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01250/">ever before</a> – making up about one third of the total 650 members. Yet, there are still cases like The Mail on Sunday running the headline “Stone the crows! Tories accuse Rayner of Basic Instinct ploy to distract Boris”. An unnamed source had told the outlet that Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, crosses and uncrosses her legs to “distract” the prime minister during parliamentary sessions. In case anyone was in doubt about the reference, the article was accompanied by the famous <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10746873/Tories-accuse-Angela-Rayner-Basic-Instinct-ploy-crosses-uncrosses-legs-PMQs.html">image of Sharon Stone</a> from the film.<br>
Sexualising a female politician may seem like low hanging fruit but it’s common in political discourse. Female politicians in many countries are put in a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118841570.iejs0162">double bind</a>: appear stereotypically feminine and you’ll be reduced to your looks, appear stereotypically masculine and you’ll be labelled a shrew. It’s typical for women in traditionally male dominated spaces to be sexualised as a way to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1363460718794647?casa_token=K_K0NwenDuwAAAAA:2gaSgZkeM3jecJIt0_GsPDELy31we01OB1-UHZlFPtSepY6_qIhZEXbYpeg8ZkkbkRomCSXLy9dc">undermine their legitimacy</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, research shows that men will objectify women in authority as a way to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0361684319871913">reassert their dominance</a>. It’s therefore not simply a sexist act to perpetuate the harmful stereotype of women using their sexuality to distract men, it’s an act to challenge a woman’s authority. It reduces her to being a Jezebel woman, rather than a politician fulfilling her duties.</p>
<p>Highlighting how stark the double standard is, some tweeted a famous picture of Conservative minister Jacob Rees-Mogg draped across the front bench of the House of Commons with his eyes closed in 2019. Of course no one accused him of mimicking Sharon Stone at the time. Meanwhile, an unnamed Conservative MP is under investigation after it was alleged that he has repeatedly been seen watching porn in the House of Commons chamber.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1518126003909976064"}"></div></p>
<p>In response to the Rayner smear, Lindsay Hoyle, the House of Commons speaker, asked for a meeting with the editor for The Mail on Sunday, David Dillion. The invitation has been declined in the name of press freedom – a decision that seems to be supported by <a href="https://pressgazette.co.uk/mail-on-sunday-angela-rayner/">Boris Johnson</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1518588941380771844"}"></div></p>
<p>Such a response is not surprising. Tabloids are in the business of stirring controversy. However, the Mail’s reasoning is key. In a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10756857/Mail-declines-Speakers-summons-Rayner-report-emerges-laughed-Stone-comparison.html">follow-up story</a>, the paper justified its original story by claiming that Rayner herself has also joked about the Basic Instinct comparison. Now the responsibility shifts to Rayner. She asked for such a headline because supposedly she’s made such jokes herself – though anyone listening <a href="https://twitter.com/mattforde/status/1486390612303699975?lang=en-GB">to the podcast</a> in which she is supposed to have done so can draw their own conclusions about her view on the matter. </p>
<h2>‘She loved it’</h2>
<p>On a journalistic level, this rationale would appear to contradict the Mail’s claim that it was simply using free speech when propagating misogyny. If it was necessary information the Mail needed to publish as a duty of the free press, then Rayner’s reaction shouldn’t be relevant in the decision-making process. To highlight her reaction in its defence unnecessarily drags Rayner further into the situation.</p>
<p>More broadly, this incident brings to mind all kinds of common myths that are used to justify gender discrimination and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-018-9549-8">sexual violence</a>. To use gendered language since the case involves a woman as the target, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-87922-001">the myths</a> include “she asked for it”, “she secretly wanted it” and “it wasn’t really serious”. The <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1365712720923157">myths serve</a> to excuse the perpetrator, blame the victim and downplay or distract from the act.</p>
<p>We can see all three happening in this case. The original act, which contributes to undermining women in politics, has quickly transformed into a debate on “free” speech. The Mail can be excused as simply doing its job since even Rayner is laughing. Even this overlooks how women are often conditioned to laugh in potentially threatening situations so as to not escalate the situation further.</p>
<p>And finally, Rayner herself is strapped with the responsibility of navigating being objectified. It is for her to justify how she may or may not have responded to the trope levelled against her. Standing up to the misogyny or even just trying to move on from it could easily be interpreted as her failing. Putting more focus on Rayner’s response and supposed laughing (which she says is not true) represents the never-ending burden women in the public realm carry.</p>
<p>In the case of porn in parliament, it appears that it was left to a woman MP sitting next to the man in question to report the matter. Forced into an uncomfortable situation by a colleague who didn’t seem to care, she had to take another uncomfortable step in sparking an investigation. </p>
<p>A woman is told to smile – it was just a joke – but it’s her fault for the joke because she smiled. Don’t dress too sexy in professional settings but also don’t dress like a man – that’s too threatening. Don’t be a vocal feminist, but if you’re attacked with sexism make sure to represent all women flawlessly. It’s sad that such a worn-out stereotype can still be used to sell papers (or rather clicks).</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182092/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lindsey Blumell receives funding from City, University of London. </span></em></p>Labour’s deputy leader was forced to justify her own response to comments made about her.Lindsey Blumell, Lecturer in Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1730952021-12-02T18:04:22Z2021-12-02T18:04:22ZMeghan Markle: Mail on Sunday loses appeal in privacy case – the judgment explained<p>Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) the publisher of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, has lost an appeal in its three-year legal battle against Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, over the Mail on Sunday’s publication of extracts from a letter written by the duchess to her father, Thomas Markle, in August 2018.</p>
<p>The duchess sued for copyright infringement and breach of privacy, arguing that the letter to her father had been “private and personal”. High Court judge Mr Justice Warby issued a <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Duchess-of-Sussex-v-Associated-2021-EWCH-273-Ch.pdf">summary judgment</a> in favour of the duchess in February 2021 which upheld her claim of breach of privacy and copyright infringement. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/media-law/blog/meghan-markle-awarded-summary-judgment-against-mail-what-does-it-mean">summary judgment means</a> that in this case the judge ruled there was no need to go to trial in order to reach a determination. This is because ANL’s defence had no real prospect of success.</p>
<p>ANL was given permission to appeal and brought fresh evidence to support its argument that the case should go to trial. But the Court of Appeal <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sussex-v-Associated-News-judgment-021221.pdf">has stated</a> that, even in light of the new evidence, Warby had been correct in granting the summary judgment, and therefore that the Mail on Sunday was liable for copyright infringement and breach of privacy. </p>
<h2>Copyright infringement</h2>
<p>Copyright protects things such as writings – including, as in this case, a letter. The copyright in the contents of the letter belongs to the person who wrote the letter – not the recipient. To use someone’s copyright-protected letter without their permission is copyright infringement, unless an exception applies. </p>
<p>ANL argued that its use of the letter fell within a copyright exception, known as “<a href="https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/news-reporting/">fair dealing</a>” for the purposes of reporting current events. But for this exception to apply, certain criteria have to be met – including that the purpose of the use is for reporting current events and the amount taken was fair. </p>
<p>The summary judgment found that the Mail on Sunday’s printing of the letter had been for the purpose of reporting its contents – which was not a current event. Warby also ruled that the amount of material from the letter published by the newspaper had been too great to be fair and was irrelevant and disproportionate to any legitimate reporting purpose.</p>
<p>Appealing his decision, ANL argued that Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, wanted to publish the letter because he felt an article published in the US by <a href="https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/">People Magazine</a>, featuring interviews with friends of the duchess portraying her as a “caring daughter” who had intended the letter as an “olive branch”, had been inaccurate. But the court ruled that the contents of the letter did not support this point, as it mostly reinforced the points made against him in the People Article.</p>
<p>The court also disagreed with ANL’s submission that the use of material from the letter was in the public interest. The public interest defence can be used to stop copyright enforcement in the name of free speech – but it only applies in special circumstances. It is a very rare for this defence to justify copyright infringement, particularly where a fair dealing defence also fails. So, it is unsurprising that the Mail on Sunday also failed on this defence. </p>
<p>So the Court of Appeal ruled that none of these defences applied and upheld Warby’s judgment that the Mail on Sunday had infringed Meghan Markle’s copyright in the contents of the letter when they published it. </p>
<h2>Privacy</h2>
<p>The duchess also sued ANL for misuse of private information. To make this claim, a claimant must demonstrate “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech_100825.pdf">a reasonable expectation of privacy</a>”. ANL argued that Meghan thought the letter might be leaked and therefore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the letter. </p>
<p>To support this contention, it presented evidence from Jason Knauf, former communications secretary to the Sussexes, who claimed in a witness statement that the letter had been written with the expectation it might become public.</p>
<p>But court of appeal judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean, upheld Warby’s decision to grant summary judgment, and ruled that the duchess had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the contents of the letter. “Those contents were personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest,” Vos, the Master of the Rolls, said in a statement read aloud in court. </p>
<p>ANL also argued in its appeal that the duchess had shared the letter with Omid Scobie and Caroline Durand, authors of a book about the duke and duchess called Finding Freedom. To make this point, ANL also relied on Knauf’s evidence, which disclosed that he had provided some information to the authors of the book with Meghan’s knowledge. This, the publisher argued, destroyed her reasonable expectation of privacy by putting the letter into the public domain. </p>
<p>But the court found that even if Meghan had shared a quote from the letter with the authors of the book, she still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the detailed contents of the letter, so the Mail on Sunday had breached Meghan’s privacy rights by publishing its contents. </p>
<p>Having lost the case on appeal, the Mail on Sunday will have to do four things:
1) publish a correction and apology
2) pay damages (likely in the form of account of profits)
3) destroy copies of the letter in their possession
4) be subject to an injunction that stops them from infringing Meghan’s copyright and privacy rights in the future. </p>
<p>It is not yet known whether ANL will pursue a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court. In order to do this, they would need to seek permission from the Court of Appeal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173095/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hayleigh Bosher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How the UK Court of Appeal reached its decision.Hayleigh Bosher, Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246192019-10-02T15:38:14Z2019-10-02T15:38:14ZMeghan Markle letter: what the law says about the press, privacy and the public’s right to know<p>The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced plans to sue the Mail on Sunday and its parent company Associated Newspapers, after they published a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6686817/Letter-showing-true-tragedy-Meghan-Markles-rift-father.html">private letter</a> from Meghan to her father earlier this year.</p>
<p><a href="https://sussexofficial.uk/">In a press release</a>, the lawyers for The Duchess of Sussex said that they have taken legal action over what they called an:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A spokesman for the newspaper said: “The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”</p>
<p>But can private letters be protected by copyright – and if so, who owns it? Copyright protects original literary works, among other things, such as books and literature – and this also includes letters. Therefore, a letter can be protected by copyright.</p>
<h2>Who has copyright?</h2>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary">UK copyright law</a>, the owner of a piece of work is usually the person who created it. Once a person owns copyright in a piece of work, the law allows them to restrict others from copying or sharing that work without permission. So, the content of the letter belongs to the writer of the letter – although the actual physical letter belongs to the recipient.</p>
<p>This means that in order to share the content of a letter, the permission of the writer would be required in order to avoid copyright infringement.</p>
<p>But there are exceptions to copyright. These are circumstances where permission is not needed – for example, if the use is for the purpose of criticism, review or quotation, or for the purpose of reporting current events. Each of the copyright exceptions have specific requirements that must be followed in order to benefit from them.</p>
<p>The exception for <a href="https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/quotation/">criticism, review or quotation</a> requires that the material used was already available to the public – so this would not apply to a private letter. The exception for <a href="https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/news-reporting/">reporting current events</a> requires that the use of the material is fair. </p>
<p>When considering if a use is fair, a court would take into consideration if the work had already been published, or whether it was confidential. The courts are unlikely to decide that use of material that is confidential was fair unless a legitimate and continuing public interest could be demonstrated, for example “leaked documents” with a clear public interest.</p>
<h2>Public interest?</h2>
<p>In 2006, the <a href="https://www.emplaw.co.uk/node/15309">Prince of Wales sued Associated Newspapers</a> after they published extracts from his diary. The prince also brought an action for copyright infringement and breach of privacy. In relation to copyright, it was found that the prince was the copyright owner and that the reproduction of the diary was an infringement of that copyright. </p>
<p>Associated Newspapers argued that they benefited from the copyright exception of news reporting, but the court found that the quotations from the journal had been chosen for the purpose of reporting on the revelation of the contents of the journal as itself an event of interest and not for the purpose of reporting on current events.</p>
<h2>Privacy law</h2>
<p>It is here that the European Convention on Human Rights comes into play. In the context of publishing private information, <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf">Article 8</a>, which provides a right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, would be weighed against <a href="https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-10/">Article 10</a>, which provides the right to freedom of expression and information.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ben-stokes-v-the-sun-gross-intrusion-or-simple-reportage-how-media-privacy-law-works-123827">Ben Stokes v The Sun: gross intrusion or simple reportage? How media privacy law works</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the UK, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/data-protection">Data Protection Act 2018</a> (the UK’s implementation of the <a href="https://eugdpr.org/">General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)</a>) provides protection for personal information. This means that personal information cannot be processed or published without permission. There is a possibility of arguing that a breach of this law is allowed when it is necessary for the public interest, for example if it supports or promotes democratic engagement.</p>
<p>But just because something is interesting to the public, does not mean that it is in the public interest. Public interest requires a higher level of justification, in order to justify the breach of the individual’s human rights.</p>
<p>In this 2006 case, the Prince of Wales also argued that the information in his diary was confidential and therefore protected under Article 8. Associated Newspapers argued that the publication of the diary was in the public interest and permitted under Article 10.</p>
<p>The judge, The Hon Mr Justice Blackburne, agreed with the Prince of Wales, ruling that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The right to be able to commit his private thoughts to writing and keep them private, the more so as he is inescapably a public figure who is subject to constant and intense media interest … The Prince of Wales is as much entitled to enjoy confidentiality for his private thoughts as an aspect of his own ‘human autonomy and dignity’ as is any other.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although a letter and a diary are slightly different – in that a letter was intended to be read by the recipient and a diary is usually intended to be entirely private – it is likely that they would be treated the same in the circumstances of being published without permission. </p>
<p>So, in general, publishing a letter without permission could be ruled to be an infringement of copyright and breach of privacy and confidentiality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124619/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hayleigh Bosher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Duke and Duchess of Sussex say they plan to sue a UK paper for publishing a private letter.Hayleigh Bosher, Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.