{"id":27428,"date":"2011-09-29T15:53:46","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T14:53:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/?p=27428"},"modified":"2011-09-29T17:49:09","modified_gmt":"2011-09-29T16:49:09","slug":"uk-rio-ferdinand-loses-privacy-case-over-sunday-mirror-kiss-and-tell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/?p=27428","title":{"rendered":"UK: Rio Ferdinand loses privacy case over Sunday Mirror kiss and tell"},"content":{"rendered":"

Footballer\u00a0Rio Ferdinand<\/a> has lost his privacy case over a “kiss and tell” story.<\/p>\n

Ferdinand was taking action for “misuse of private information” following an article in the Sunday Mirror newspaper in April 2010, in which Carly Storey detailed their 13-year relationship for a sum of \u00a316,000. Mr\u00a0Justice Nicol said<\/a> that the “balancing exercise\u00a0favours the defendant’s right of freedom of expression over the claimant’s right of privacy.”<\/p>\n

MGN said it was in the public interest to run the story, following Ferdinand’s replacement<\/a> of John Terry as England skipper after stories of Terry’s alleged affairs were revealed.<\/p>\n

Index on Censorship<\/strong> news editor Padraig Reidy said the free speech group was “greatly heartened \u00a0by the judge’s recognition of free expression in his ruling”.<\/p>\n

“Kiss and tell stories can be controversial,” he said. “But this is a case where public interest can be argued. Ferdinand’s claim that he was ’embarrassed’ by the revelations is clearly not enough to restrict Ms Storey’s right to free speech”.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Footballer\u00a0Rio Ferdinand has lost his privacy case over a “kiss and tell” story. Ferdinand was taking action for “misuse of private information” following an article in the Sunday Mirror newspaper in April 2010, in which Carly Storey detailed their 13-year relationship for a sum of \u00a316,000. Mr\u00a0Justice Nicol said that the “balancing exercise\u00a0favours the defendant’s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":60,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[584,585],"tags":[269,3859,3858],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27428"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/60"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27428"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27428\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27436,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27428\/revisions\/27436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=27428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indexoncensorship.org\/newsite02may\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=27428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}