Is my interpretation of this correct?

My tort essay question is, 'Is the concept of a ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy so vague, as to risk the law relating to misuse of private information becoming uncertain, thereby undermining our freedom to express ourselves?'

My interpretation of the question is that its asking if the concept of a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy relating to misuse of private information is vague or not and if this affects our freedom to express ourselves. Am I right?

I'm confused as to what 'freedom to express ourselves' means. I initially thought it was referring to Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is about about freedom of expression.

All the textbooks I've read about this area, seem to imply that it is vague and is undermining our freedom of expression. But it doesn't say how. I've written my introduction. But I don't really know what arguments I should be writing.

Is the concept vague? Is it undermining our freedom to express ourselves? What does the term 'freedom to express ourselves' mean?

1) What is a reasonable expectation to privacy?
2) Is it vague
3) If it is vague, will it make the law relating to the misuse of private information uncertain
4) Leading to a limitation on our freedom to express ourselves.

Article 10 of the HRA? u wot?

I'm finding it tough interpreting your actual question in all honesty.

Thank you, and sorry I meant Article 10 of the ECHR- freedom of expression. My lecturer replied to my email,and confirmed what I thought.

The problem is, the lectures, the tutorials, the wider reading I have done on this area is so vague. I don't know what exactly is a reasonable expectation of privacy, as it varies from case to case.

My essay question, or what I'm asking?

Lectures don't give you answers for everything.

The point is to do your own research abd to form your argument based on that.

Your question. But I see why, you said you were finding it a bit vague, I could tell. Are you good now?

Sort of, its better than the other essay question that's available. So I have to just try and persevere. I've done so much wider reading, but its so limited. All the books, articles etc, I've read seem to not have a definitive definition of what a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy entails. I want to use that as my main argument.

Do you have any suggestions?

Are we certain of what we can and cannot freely express without fear of chastisement. Are the common law authorities clear on the position. Are they vague or uneven or misleading. One concept of the rule of law is legal certainty. It gets sticky not just for lawyers but also for joe public if one cannot at least ascertain the correct position.

Sorry, just my initial head thoughts.

From what I remember of Tort thats the main problem....'reasonable' is not an objective test contrary to what those old judges believe. Thats what makes it vague

I agree and its annoying. So my best bet is to find cases that seem to define a 'reasonable expectation' of privacy in different ways, illustrate how they're 'vague' and compare/contrast them, then argue this undermines our freedom of expression?

For 3000 words, I'm slightly worried that I might end up under the word count. I've done well on all my other essays. This is just something else, I've never been this blank after doing so much wider reading.

Contrary to what tehforum is assuming, I don't just rely on lectures/tutorials like some people do. I genuinely enjoy the law, and I enjoy reading around areas especially for assignments.

I enjoyed Tort so yes read around! Pretty sure you have westlaw or lexis nexis? You should find a lot of journals about it on there. As for cases, thats a loosing battle haha but you'll at least find a lot of discussions. Your plan sounds good but you will definitely need to pad it out with wider reading for 3000 words. Thats loads, highest we ever had was 2500.

Perhaps look at some of the newer celebrity photography cases, i believe one was decided last week. Weller and ors [2014] EWHC 1163 Admin