The Law on Publishing Content and People’s Names Without Permission

Written by Editor

DISCLAIMER: This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It focuses primarily on the law of England and Wales. Privacy, media, data protection and defamation disputes are highly fact-specific, and different rules may apply in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions. Anyone affected by an intrusive, inaccurate or harmful publication should obtain advice from a qualified media-law or privacy solicitor as soon as possible because legal time limits may apply.

Privacy, Public Interest and Human Dignity

Naming someone is not automatically unlawful, but freedom of expression does not give publishers an unrestricted right to expose, ridicule or humiliate an individual

News websites, newspapers, bloggers, influencers and social media users frequently publish stories that identify other people by name. Sometimes the person has agreed to be identified. On other occasions, they may have had no warning that intimate, upsetting or potentially damaging information about them was about to enter the public domain.

The law does not provide everyone with an automatic right to prevent their name from ever being published. Consent is not required for every lawful use of personal information.

However, this does not mean that publishers have an unrestricted right to reveal private details, publish inaccurate allegations or deliberately present someone in a degrading or humiliating way.

A name can constitute personal data when it identifies an individual, particularly when it is combined with information about their family, health, finances, relationships, employment, location or personal history. UK data protection law therefore becomes relevant even when the information was obtained from another person or was already known within a small circle.

The central question should not always be limited to:

“Who supplied the information?”

It may also be necessary to ask:

“Was the information private, was it accurate, was publication genuinely necessary, and what harm was caused by the way the person was treated?”

A Recent High Court Case

A recent High Court judgment illustrates the evidential difficulties that can arise when a legal claim is built around allegations that information was gathered unlawfully.

The claimants alleged misuse of private information and breach of confidence arising from alleged unlawful information-gathering methods, including phone hacking, obtaining information by deception and the use of private investigators. The claims were dismissed because the court found that the specific allegations of unlawful information gathering had not been proved on the balance of probabilities.

The court explained that suspicion, even understandable suspicion, was not enough. It rejected the argument that information must have been obtained unlawfully simply because it was private, and the publisher could not provide a positive explanation for every source. The court also emphasised that the parties were bound by the cases they had pleaded and could not replace one allegation with a different or more serious allegation during the trial.

That judgment should not be interpreted as a general declaration that private information can always be published freely. The court determined whether the particular claimants had proved the unlawful information-gathering allegations placed before it. It was not conducting a general public inquiry into historic media practices, nor was it deciding that privacy rights cease to exist when the source of information cannot be established.

The case demonstrates why legal representatives must consider all potentially available causes of action from the beginning. A claim based on how information was obtained is not necessarily the same as a claim based on the decision to publish it.

Two Separate Legal Questions

When private or damaging information is published, there can be two distinct legal issues.

How was the information obtained?

This may involve allegations such as:

Phone hacking or intercepted communications.
Deception or “blagging.”
Unauthorised access to accounts or records.
Corrupt payments.
Breach of confidence by an employee, friend or professional.
Unlawful surveillance.
Theft or misuse of documents.

Serious allegations require convincing evidence. A court cannot normally assume unlawful conduct merely because the claimant cannot identify the source.

Was the publication itself lawful?

Even where information has been obtained through an apparently lawful route, publication may still raise questions about:

Misuse of private information.
Breach of confidence.
Data protection.
Defamation.
Harassment.
Copyright in letters, photographs or other original materials.
Regulatory standards relating to privacy, accuracy and intrusion.

The legality of obtaining information and the legality of publishing it frequently overlap, but they are not identical questions.

Do Publishers Need Permission to Use Someone’s Name?

Not necessarily.

Consent is only one possible lawful basis for processing personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office explains that organisations often do not need consent where another lawful basis applies. Journalistic activity may also qualify for specific protections where the legal conditions for the journalism exemption are satisfied.

However, the journalism exemption is not an unrestricted licence to publish anything about anybody. It exists to protect freedom of expression and legitimate journalism, particularly where publication is reasonably believed to be in the public interest. Media organisations must still consider privacy, fairness, accuracy, proportionality and the potential harm to the individual.

The position may therefore depend on:

Who the person is.
What information is being revealed?
Whether it concerns their public or private life.
Whether the information is accurate.
Whether they have previously made it public.
Whether children or vulnerable people are involved.
The purpose and tone of the publication.
Whether identification is genuinely necessary.
Whether there is a legitimate public interest.
The likely impact upon the person and their family.

The Right to Privacy and the Right to Free Expression

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence. Article 10 protects freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and ideas. Both rights are reflected in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Neither right automatically defeats the other.

In privacy cases, courts generally consider:

Whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information.
If they did, whether the publisher’s freedom of expression justified the interference with that privacy.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that misuse of private information is a recognised legal claim. Where information is private, the court must decide whether its use or publication was justified by a competing interest, such as freedom of expression.

A person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy even while in a public place. The context matters. A private family outing, medical visit, period of grief or vulnerable moment does not necessarily become fair material for mass publication merely because someone could physically be seen by others.

Public Figures Are Still Human Beings

Politicians, members of the Royal Family, entertainers, business leaders and other public figures can legitimately face greater scrutiny concerning their public duties, use of public money, professional conduct and matters affecting society.

That does not mean every detail of their personal lives belongs to the public.

A public figure may still have legitimate expectations of privacy regarding:

Medical information.
Mental health.
Private correspondence.
Their children.
Intimate relationships.
The interior of their home.
Personal security arrangements.
Grief and bereavement.
Private conversations.
Financial information unrelated to public responsibilities.

The fact that a story will attract clicks, advertising revenue or public curiosity does not automatically establish a public-interest justification.

What interests the public is not always the same as what is in the public interest.

Humiliation, Dignity and the Law

Humiliation is not generally a standalone civil claim in England and Wales. A person cannot normally succeed in court merely by establishing that an article embarrassed, offended or upset them.

However, the humiliating nature of a publication may be highly relevant when assessing whether another recognised legal wrong has occurred.

It could help demonstrate:

The seriousness of an invasion of privacy.
The distress caused by the misuse of personal data.
The harmful consequences of repeated harassment.
The impact of a defamatory statement.
The disproportionality of identifying the individual.
The aggravated nature of the publisher’s conduct.
The level of damage that may be appropriate.

The Supreme Court has identified several legal routes that may protect people from harmful publications, including defamation, breach of confidence, harassment, data protection law and misuse of private information.

Therefore, a legal representative considering a distressing publication should not focus exclusively on proving who supplied the information. The content, presentation, repetition, headline, images, commentary and foreseeable impact upon the person may all need to be examined.

At the same time, humiliating language alone does not automatically make an article unlawful. There must still be evidence supporting a recognised cause of action.

Misuse of Private Information

Misuse of private information may apply where a person had a reasonable expectation that certain information would remain private and the publisher’s justification for disclosure does not outweigh that privacy.

Unlike defamation, a privacy claim can concern information that is substantially true. The issue is not necessarily whether the information was invented, but whether it was private and whether publishing it was justified.

Relevant information could include:

Medical diagnoses and treatment.
Sexual or intimate information.
Private family disputes.
Personal messages or correspondence.
Details about children.
Financial difficulties.
Information about a person’s home.
Photographs taken in circumstances carrying an expectation of privacy.
Details revealing a person’s precise movements or security vulnerabilities.

The court will consider the full circumstances, including the nature of the information, how it was obtained, the person’s position, any previous public disclosure and the consequences of publication.

Defamation and Damaging Allegations

Defamation law concerns statements that cause or are likely to cause serious harm to an individual’s reputation.

Under the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is not defamatory unless it has caused or is likely to cause serious reputational harm. The Act also provides defences including substantial truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest.

Publishers should therefore distinguish clearly between:

Verified facts.
Allegations that have not been proved.
The opinions of the writer.
Statements attributed to another source.
Rumour or speculation.
Court findings.
Denials or alternative explanations.

Simply repeating another person’s allegation does not necessarily protect the publisher. A person can potentially be responsible for republishing a defamatory statement even when they were not its original source.

Headlines must also accurately reflect the substance of the article. A cautious paragraph buried in the body of a story may not correct an accusatory or misleading headline.

Data Protection and Personal Information

Names, photographs, online identifiers and information connected to an identifiable living person can fall within the definition of personal data.

Publishers and website owners should consider:

Why does the person need to be identified?
Whether the information is accurate.
Whether less information could be published.
Whether anonymisation would meet the same purpose.
Whether the information is especially sensitive.
Whether publication could expose the person to abuse, discrimination, fraud or physical danger.
Whether the person could still be identified indirectly.

Removing a name does not always make an article anonymous. Details such as a person’s job, location, age, family relationship and a distinctive incident may still enable readers to identify them. The ICO warns that information can remain personal data where an individual is identifiable indirectly.

Harassment and Repeated Publications

A single upsetting article will not ordinarily amount to a course of conduct under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The legislation generally requires conduct on at least two occasions, and conduct can include speech.

However, a pattern may potentially develop where there are:

Repeated intrusive articles.
Persistent approaches after a person has asked to be left alone.
Photographers are continually following someone.
Repeated publication of private information.
Coordinated online targeting.
Encouragement of readers to contact or confront the individual.
Persistent social media posts directed at the same person.

Journalists and publishers regulated by IPSO are also expected not to obtain information through intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit.

Accuracy, Privacy and Press Standards

The IPSO Editors’ Code requires regulated publications to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Significant inaccuracies must be corrected promptly and with appropriate prominence.

The Code also states that editors must justify intrusions into an individual’s private life without consent. When assessing privacy, relevant considerations include what the person has already disclosed publicly and whether the information is already genuinely within the public domain.

An ethical publisher should not ask only:

“Can we legally publish this?”

They should also ask:

“Is identifying this person necessary, proportionate and responsible?”

Children and Vulnerable People Require Particular Care

Children do not lose their privacy rights merely because a parent is famous, involved in public life or the subject of media attention.

The courts have recognised that a child’s reasonable expectation of privacy must be assessed objectively, taking account of the circumstances and the reasonable expectations of their parents.

Extra care should also be taken when a publication concerns someone who is:

Disabled.
Experiencing mental distress.
Bereaved or traumatised.
A survivor of abuse.
In a hospital or receiving medical treatment.
At risk of stalking or domestic violence.
Experiencing financial hardship.
Unable to understand the consequences of publicity.

Public exposure can have consequences far beyond embarrassment. It may affect employment, housing, personal safety, relationships, medical recovery and mental wellbeing.

Responsible Publishing Checklist

Before naming a person, a responsible writer or editor should establish the purpose of identification.

They should verify the information through reliable evidence, distinguish allegations from proven facts and give the person a reasonable opportunity to respond where appropriate.

Private medical, family, financial or intimate details should not be included merely to make the story more dramatic. Publishers should consider whether initials, a changed name, redaction or complete anonymisation would communicate the issue without unnecessarily exposing the individual.

The headline, photographs, captions, social media preview and search-engine description should all be reviewed. A balanced article can still become misleading or humiliating through a sensational headline or an unflattering image selected to provoke ridicule.

Writers should also record why they believed publication and identification were in the public interest. This creates an accountable editorial decision rather than an after-the-event justification.

What Can Someone Do After Being Named?

A person who believes they have been treated unlawfully or unfairly should preserve the evidence before contacting the publisher.

This can include screenshots, publication dates, web addresses, headlines, photographs, social media posts, search results, reader comments and any correspondence with the writer or editor.

They may then request:

Correction of inaccurate information.
An apology.
Removal or redaction of private details.
An amendment to the headline.
An opportunity to respond.
De-indexing from search engines where appropriate.
An undertaking not to repeat the information.
Details of the publisher’s complaints procedure.

Depending on the circumstances, complaints may be made to the publisher, IPSO or the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO accepts complaints concerning the way media organisations have handled personal data, although data protection and journalism must be balanced against freedom of expression.

Serious cases may require urgent advice about an injunction, damages or other court remedies. Legal advice should be obtained promptly rather than waiting for the story to spread across multiple websites and social media platforms.

The Difference Between Accountability and Public Shaming

Journalism has a vital role in exposing wrongdoing, examining powerful institutions and informing democratic debate. Privacy law should not be used to silence legitimate investigation or prevent responsible reporting.

However, accountability is not the same as public shaming.

A story can address a legitimate issue without unnecessarily revealing private medical information, ridiculing a person’s appearance, exposing their children, speculating about their mental state or using language designed primarily to degrade them.

The greater the foreseeable harm, the stronger the justification for identification and publication should be.

Conclusion

Using someone’s name without permission is not automatically unlawful. Equally, the absence of a consent requirement does not remove every privacy, data protection, defamation or harassment obligation.

The recent High Court judgment illustrates the difficulty of proving that journalists obtained information through unlawful means. Suspicion cannot replace evidence, and serious allegations must be supported by convincing facts.

Nevertheless, the source of information is only one part of the legal and ethical picture. Lawyers, editors and affected individuals should also examine the decision to publish, the nature of the information, the accuracy of the allegations, the public-interest justification and the way the person was portrayed.

A person should not have to prove phone hacking or identify a confidential source before anyone asks whether publishing intimate information was necessary, proportionate or humane.

Freedom of expression protects robust journalism. It should not be mistaken for an unrestricted freedom to expose, degrade or humiliate another human being for entertainment, profit or online engagement.

Key Takeaway

Public figures and private individuals can both be named without consent in appropriate circumstances, but every publication should be able to justify its accuracy, necessity, proportionality and genuine public interest, especially where private information and foreseeable personal harm are involved.