Product details

This is the first of a three case series, (797-010-1 to 797-012-1) that can be used with the other cases in the series or on its own. The common concern of the series is the competing rights of the press (and the public''s "right to know") and those of private individuals. It was successfully used by Dr Maggie Scammell of the Department of Politics and Communications at the University of Liverpool in February 1995. It formed part of a course on various aspects of the British media for second and third year students and was used in one hour seminars. The cases would be of interest to students of British Politics and Applied Political Philosophy, as well as Media and Communication Studies students.The right to "free speech" is one of the most cherished of British institutions. But what happens when that right comes into conflict with another right - that of privacy? After examining the evolution of, and philosophical justification for, these rights, this case uses a number of contemporary examples to question where the limits of such rights lie. In particular it addresses the issue of how these rights might be reconciled with conceptions of the "public interest". Students are asked to determine which, if any, of these competing rights should take precedence and what role the British press takes in such deliberations. Ultimately does the press defend its own speech while invading the rights of others? This case will provide an excellent basis for a single seminar discussion.