Duty of Reserve.

[Alfie]

It would depend who instigated it and what you said.

OK.  Well how about I instigated it, and it was to publicise the fact that my daughter had disappeared, would I forfeit the right to a private life then?

[Robittybob1]

It would depend who instigated it and what you said.

Well did you ever see something that was untoward? 

[G-Unit]

How many interviews do you have to give before you forfeit the right to a private life then?

I don't know about Portugal, but US libel law is different for 'public figures'. Interestingly, the Supreme Court judges referred to the McCanns as public figures;

In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure......A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

[Robittybob1]

OK.  Well how about I instigated it, and it was to publicise the fact that my daughter had disappeared, would I forfeit the right to a private life then?

Yes; if you, like Kate, don't admit to a crime you didn't do, when given the generous option of taking a minimal sentence.

[Alfie]

I don't know about Portugal, but US libel law is different for 'public figures'. Interestingly, the Supreme Court judges referred to the McCanns as public figures;

In United States law, public figure is a term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure......A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

Do you think Amaral has forfeited his right to a private life too?  What about Murat?  He has given interviews. 

[Robittybob1]

Do you think Amaral has forfeited his right to a private life too?  What about Murat?  He has given interviews.

IMO absolutely in the case of Amaral.

[G-Unit]

Do you think Amaral has forfeited his right to a private life too?  What about Murat?  He has given interviews.

If they sued someone in the Portuguese Courts we might find out.

[Robittybob1]

If they sued someone in the Portuguese Courts we might find out.

In the interview with Amaral he mentions aspects of Kate's Diary and as far as I know that was never made public so there appear to be information being divulged that conflicts with his Duty of Reserve.
FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION - Maddie McCann The Mystery Gonçalo Amaral - CMTV April 23rd 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FKsKD78Qsc&t=18s

Has Kate's diary been published for all to read?

[Alfie]

If they sued someone in the Portuguese Courts we might find out.

Well, let's say the Portuguese courts decided that both Murat and Amaral had a right to a private life would that seem just to you?

[G-Unit]

Well, let's say the Portuguese courts decided that both Murat and Amaral had a right to a private life would that seem just to you?

I don't have any thoughts either way. I can understand why the judges would say the McCanns sacrificed their own privacy, however. Numerous photo calls and interviews, documentaries filmed in their home, inviting the press to accompany them on their European 'tour', allowing Gerry to be filmed at work.......

[Robittybob1]

Well, let's say the Portuguese courts decided that both Murat and Amaral had a right to a private life would that seem just to you?

Can we say what we like about Amaral, Murat and the McCanns because they have lost their rights to privacy?

[Erngath]

I don't have any thoughts either way. I can understand why the judges would say the McCanns sacrificed their own privacy, however. Numerous photo calls and interviews, documentaries filmed in their home, inviting the press to accompany them on their European 'tour', allowing Gerry to be filmed at work.......

The Queen has also done all of the above and other members of the Royal Family, that will be why they no longer have the right to any privacy.

[Alfie]

Can we say what we like about Amaral, Murat and the McCanns because they have lost their rights to privacy?

In the precedent set by the Portuguese courts in the McCann case it would seem so, yes, but only in Portugal.  As far as providing details of their private life, Amaral's wife even went so far as to confirm that her ex is (was) a red hot lover.  TMI!!!!

[G-Unit]

Can we say what we like about Amaral, Murat and the McCanns because they have lost their rights to privacy?

I've no idea. All I know is that in Portugal you will find it difficult to claim someone breached your right to privacy if you yourself voluntarily sacrificed your privacy.

[Robittybob1]

In the precedent set by the Portuguese courts in the McCann case it would seem so, yes, but only in Portugal.  As far as providing details of their private life, Amaral's wife even went so far as to confirm that her ex is (was) a red hot lover.  TMI!!!!

Oh this would only apply in Portugal.  You'd think because  they quote European Law it would also apply throughout the EU and that includes UK doesn't it?