What if the book is especially graphic, it is being published under the man's real name and his son is very young, let's say of school age? The ex-wife could be worried that the son would be teased at school, for example. Or that he might read things about his father which could upset him.
I don't follow this at all. You might as well be saying that no parent should be allowed to be a public figure in case their kids might be teased or made uncomfortable. So... no parent can run for office? No parent can become famous acting in a film or on TV? Protest something? Keep a blog? Give me a break. "Your kid might be teased because of your public life" is not in any way legitimate legal grounds. We are all allowed to embarrass ourselves. Having a kid does not require someone to pretend to be neutral and inoffensive. If something is legal for a childless person, it's legal for a parent. Parents are still, first and foremost, their own people.
I understand that the court eventually agreed, but I'm shocked that the suit was even allowed to get that far.
For all we know, the author might use his story to talk about his relationship with his son and/or ex-wife. They may be characters in this story. And we all have rights not to be libeled or slandered. We also have a right to be protected from harm.
That is the only reason they should have any grounds at all. If that's what's going on, I wish it were more specifically described in the media, because that's an interesting point. What makes a story belong to one person over someone else?
I have now found more information:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-judgment.pdf
From the supreme court judgment linked above:
A first draft of the book was sent to the publishers in December 2013. In
February 2014 it was leaked to the mother and some changes were made as a result,
including the use of pseudonyms for mother and child. The mother did not consider
that those changes had gone far enough....The causes of action alleged were misuse of private information,negligence and the intentional infliction of harm.
Later, the first two, misuse of private information and negligence, were negated by the court, leaving only intentional infliction of harm:
The child’s appeal was heard in August 2014 and judgment given in October:[2014] EWCA Civ 1277. The Court of Appeal held that there was no claim in misuseof private information or in negligence, but that the claim for intentionally causingharm should go for trial.
And the crux of that claim:
The mother has filed a report from Dr Christine Tizzard, a consultant child
psychologist who interviewed the child in June 2014. Her opinion was that he “is
likely to suffer severe emotional distress and psychological harm in the event that
he is exposed to the material in the publication”....In her view, the information
in the book would be inappropriate for any 11 year old child to read and have access
to, but it would be even more devastating for this child, because of his difficulties in
processing information.
Of course an 11 year old shouldn't be reading books with graphic depictions of rape, his father's or anyone else's. Was the mother planning to give him a copy? Is she claiming that the mere fact of its publication makes him reading it inevitable? When he's an adult he may well choose to read it, but I don't understand how an eleven year old would, supposedly inevitably, find himself reading this book in the first place.
Might he? Of course. Should we burn all adult books because a child *might* read them?
Many authors of, for example, erotic novels have children. E L James (Fifty Shades of Grey) has two teenaged sons. My crime novels are not appropriate for my nine-year-old to read. Should all parents of minor children be prevented from publishing anything but children's books?
Ah, here they agree that it is unlikely for him to read it:
Both parties accept that it is most unlikely that the child will come intopossession of the book itself. The publishers plan to publish it in hard copy in theUK and much of the rest of the English-speaking world, and to retail it in shops andon-line, but there are no plans at present to publish it in the USA.
(That's a shame about the USA. There is a detailed description of the structure of the book and it sounds really interesting, especially as it relates to music and his musical career.)
The father accepts that knowing what happened to him would upset andembarrass the child, but not that it will be harmful if dealt with in the right way andat the right time.
Agreed.
The mother is concerned that the child whois proud of his father, has “googled” him in the past. If he did so in future he wouldbe likely to come across reviews and references to the book.
So here we see pretty clearly that it's the content of the story, the revelation of the abuse itself, that is her main concern, not specific instances of the son being mentioned in the book.
And more here showing the same:
i) The book contained graphic descriptions of the abuse which theappellant had suffered and his incidents of self-harm.
ii) Those passages were likely to be quoted by reviewers or newspaperswho serialised the book.
iii) On the uncontradicted expert evidence those passages were likely tocause psychological harm to the claimant.
iv) The book was dedicated to the claimant and partly addressed to him.
v) The appellant knew of the risks posed to the claimant because of hisvulnerabilities and had for that reason subscribed to Recital K.
And the court response:
The book is for a wide audience and the question of justification has to beconsidered accordingly, not in relation to the claimant in isolation. In point of fact,the father’s case is that although the book is dedicated to the claimant, he would notexpect him to see it until he is much older. Arden LJ said that the father could notbe heard to say that he did not intend the book to reach the child, since it wasdedicated to him and some parts of it are addressed to him. We have only found onepassage addressed to him, which is in the acknowledgments, but morefundamentally we do not understand why the appellant may not be heard to say that the book is not intended for his eyes at this stage of his life.
Agree!
In sum:
Freedom to report the truth is a basic right to which the law gives a very highlevel of protection....It is difficult to envisage any circumstances inwhich speech which is not deceptive, threatening or possibly abusive, could giverise to liability in tort for wilful infringement of another’s right to personal safety.The right to report the truth is justification in itself. That is not to say that the rightof disclosure is absolute, for a person may owe a duty to treat information as privateor confidential. But there is no general law prohibiting the publication of facts whichwill cause distress to another.
Criticising the interim injunction:
The Court of Appeal recognised that the appellant had a right to tell his story,but they held for the purposes of an interlocutory injunction that it was arguablyunjustifiable for him to do so in graphic language. The injunction permitspublication of the book only in a bowdlerised version. This presents problems bothas a matter of principle and in the form of the injunction. As to the former, the book’srevelation of what it meant to the appellant to undergo his experience of abuse as achild, and how it has continued to affect him throughout his life, is communicatedthrough the brutal language which he uses. His writing contains dark descriptions ofemotional hell, self-hatred and rage, as can be seen in the extracts which we haveset out. The reader gains an insight into his pain but also his resilience andachievements. To lighten the darkness would reduce its effect. The court has taken editorial control over the manner in which the appellant’s story is expressed. A rightto convey information to the public carries with it a right to choose the language inwhich it is expressed in order to convey the information most effectively.
Even more emphatic:
The facts of this case are fully set out by Lady Hale and Lord Toulson inparas 1-30 above. I agree that the interlocutory injunction granted by the Court ofAppeal was flawed for two reasons. First, there should have been no injunction atall, because the claimant’s claim to restrain publication of the defendant’s book hadno prospects of success. Secondly, the terms of the injunction were flawed bothconceptually and procedurally.
I do think that it is morally important for authors to consider who will be affected by the publication of memoirs and the like. Consideration of these things, however, does not mean that someone else's potential distress automatically trumps everything else. It sounds like this author had considered his son, and considered him as a whole person who will one day be an adult.
The mother's view continues to confound me. According to the court documents, her main concern seems to be google results. Surely initiating this case has increased those results a hundredfold.