A critique of the role model argument under the law of misuse of private information.

This thesis argues that the state of judicial reasoning in the role model argument in misuse of private information is unsatisfactory. To prove that the state of reasoning is unsatisfactory the thesis will split its argument into two strands: A) the state of judicial reasoning is unsatisfactory when it comes to how judges conclude that the information about the behaviour of the role model, if published, is likely to influence the behavoiur of the audience and B) the state of judicial reasoning is unsatisfactory when it comes to how judges conclude that the private information of the role model in question is in the public interest to publish.

In regard to strand A, the thesis will carry a detail critical analysis on judicial reasoning on the behavioral understanding and behavioral effects of publishing a role model’s private information. Due to the unsatisfactory state of judicial reasoning in this area, the thesis will introduce the prototype willingness model. The thesis hopes in introducing the psychological model to improve the state of judicial reasoning when it come to the influence of publication on adolescents who see the public figure as their role model.

In regard to strand B, the thesis will provide that the role model argument is unsuitable to fit under the public interest to publish argument. The thesis will argue, with the aid of Mill’s harm principle, that the role model argument needs to be seen as a one that produces harmful speech. The thesis will conclude on strand B, that the public interest argument in the balancing exercise is flexible and capable of taking the new understanding of the role model argument in its equation.