The broadcast of images of the saga of influencers feasting on a plane transporting them to Mexico without worrying too much about safety rules reminds all those who seek the public’s attention of some obvious facts. The media and social networks provide great power to “influence”. But with that comes the burden of assuming the consequences of his choices, his words and his actions.
Social networks help generate public attention and profit from it. It is to this that we owe the emergence of “influencers”. But influence does not come alone. When we broadcast images of our behavior, we are in a bad position to complain of being criticized or even ridiculed by those who, rightly or wrongly, consider that it is dangerous behavior or who ignore the rules intended to limit the risks of spreading the COVID-19 virus.
The same goes for those who hurl abuse at famous personalities. Moreover, the practice is spreading more and more among certain commentators or public figures to reproduce some of the messages addressed to them in the multiple public spaces that are now social networks. Some people wonder about the legality of these broadcasts or republications of comments, often made with the aim of denouncing or making fun of. The process goes as follows: a message, often critical, sometimes written with an approximate spelling is sent to a public figure on his Twitter feed, his Facebook page or his Instagram account. This takes it up with or without comments and exposes it to others, often with the aim of highlighting the commentator’s faults. Is it wrong within the meaning of the law to rebroadcast a message initially sent to a public figure?
First of all, let’s settle the case of private correspondence. It is generally wrong to publish a message transmitted in a private capacity, in a context where it is clear that the correspondent does not expect his words to be broadcast or rebroadcast to a large audience. But when speaking to a journalist or a public figure on a social network, it is legitimate to assume that this is not a private correspondence. Likewise, when you line a TikTok account with pictures of boozy parties, you can’t complain about being noticed and relayed.
For comments made within the framework of speaking on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook or the dissemination of images on online platforms, the rules that apply are those governing public discussions. Social networks are virtual public places. What takes place there is in principle public. However, it turns out that speaking in public spaces comes with consequences. Advancing a point of view, showing off or launching an invective in a public space necessarily exposes us to being relayed or to being answered, sometimes in a very severe way.
Privacy has limits
The right to privacy, as understood in most democratic countries, ends where the public interest begins. When we are in a situation of public interest, the individual who is involved in it has no right of veto over the dissemination of images or comments as long as this is part of a legitimate information purpose. public.
In 1998, in a landmark decision on the limits of the right to privacy and image, the Supreme Court explained that “it is generally recognized that certain elements of the private life of a person exercising a public activity or having acquired a certain notoriety can become a matter of public interest. This is the case, in particular, for artists and political figures, but also, more generally, for all those whose professional success depends on public opinion. It may also happen that a hitherto unknown individual is called upon to take a leading role in a matter in the public domain, for example, a major lawsuit, a major economic activity having an impact on the use of funds. public or an activity that jeopardizes public safety ”.
Thus, with regard to matters relating to public affairs, for example situations involving public health issues, the public has a broader right to know, even if this may involve the disclosure of personal information. Indeed, it is often through the media that members of the public can be informed of problematic situations in the conduct of community affairs.
The appreciation of what constitutes legitimate public information is therefore an intrinsic component of the definition of privacy. Such a tie-up makes it possible to assess the context and the weight of the interests relating to the preservation of privacy and the interests which may legitimize intrusions and disclosures about a person.
When information is in a situation of public interest, it is not part of a person’s private life. In such circumstances, it cannot be argued that the data subjects would have to give their consent to the broadcast of a conversation or the rebroadcasting of words.
The ability to attract attention comes with a quid pro quo. Access to the status of public figure is now available to all those who have a Twitter thread or an Instagram account. But whether you are a celebrity in the entertainment world or a quidam who hurls abuse at him on Twitter, the consequences associated with speaking in public remain. Those who act in public spaces should expect their actions to be scrutinized and criticized, even ridiculed. Being a public figure confers a certain power and influence. But that comes with demands: those of taking responsibility for one’s words and actions.