来源：《每日电讯报》
原文刊登日期：2022年5月18日
On Tuesday, a Conservative MP was arrested after being accused of rape and sexual assault offences between 2002 and 2009. He was also held on suspicion of indecent assault and misconduct in public office. That this public figure was not named begs the question: why does the right to privacy now trump all other concerns, even in cases involving such serious allegations?
周二，一名保守党议员因被控在2002年至2009年间强奸和性侵犯而被捕。他还因涉嫌猥亵和公职不端而被拘留。这位公众人物的姓名没有给出，这令人置疑：为什么现在隐私权胜过所有其他问题，即使在涉及如此严重指控的案件中也是如此？
In February, Supreme Court judges dismissed an appeal brought by Bloomberg over the publication of information about a person under criminal investigation, ruling that such a person generally has “a reasonable expectation of privacy”. This comes after high-profile privacy cases like that involving Sir Cliff Richard, whom the BBC identified as being investigated over allegations of historical sex abuse, but for which he was never arrested or charged. Sir Cliff won his case against the broadcaster in 2018.
今年2月，英国最高法院法官驳回了彭博社就发布刑事调查对象信息提出的上诉，裁定这样的人通常“有合理的隐私预期”。此前，英国广播公司（BBC）确认克里夫·理查德爵士因涉嫌多年前性侵犯而受到调查，但他从未因此被捕或受到指控。克里夫爵士在2018年赢得了对BBC的诉讼。
However, it is now apparent that this new standard of privacy can have pernicious consequences. One is that the failure to name the MP has resulted in an explosion of false accusations being made online against people – in this case, Conservatives MPs – with no connection at all to the case. It is surely absurd that responsible news organisations – which are well-versed in media law and equipped with expertise on how to preserve victims’ anonymity, a reason often cited for not naming a subject – are silenced, while wild speculations can be broadcast on social media platforms with impunity.
然而，现在很明显，这种新的隐私标准可能会产生有害的后果。其中一个原因是，由于未能公布议员的姓名，网上出现了大量针对他人的虚假指控——这次是针对保守党议员——而这些指控与本案毫无关联。负责任的新闻机构——精通媒体法，在如何保护受害者匿名方面拥有专业知识，这是不给出调查对象姓名的一个经常被引用的理由——却被保持沉默，而疯狂的猜测却可以在社交媒体平台上传播而不受惩罚，这无疑是荒谬的。
There are good reasons to name public figures, and those who hold positions of power and influence, under investigation for serious crimes. In the case of an MP, constituents might justifiably expect that their representative’s ability to carry out his or her duties will be impeded, and indeed in this instance the MP has been asked to stay away from Parliament. Another is that information sharing can aid the police, encouraging people to bring evidence to investigators.
当公众人物、以及那些拥有权力和影响力的人因严重犯罪而受到调查时，有充分的理由公布他们的姓名。就议员而言，选民可能有理由认为他们的代表履行其职责的能力会受到阻碍，在这种情况下，议员确实被要求远离议会。另一个原因是，信息共享可以帮助警方，鼓励人们向调查人员提供证据。
Britain is coming to resemble European countries like Germany where the right to privacy overrides all other considerations, including the public interest in being informed about cases. The Government proposed a Bill of Rights and a Brexit Freedoms Bill in an effort to move away from EU law, such as that enshrined in the Human Rights Acts. It needs to address the lack of balance in the law concerning privacy as a matter of urgency.
英国正变得越来越像德国等欧洲国家，在这些国家，隐私权凌驾于所有其他考虑之上，包括了解案件的公众利益。政府提出了《权利法案》和《英国脱欧自由法案》，试图脱离《人权法案》等欧盟法律。作为紧急事项，政府需要解决有关隐私的法律中缺乏平衡的问题。