Case Study 2: A Man v Zoo Magazine

• A father objects to a photograph of him and his 10 year old daughter, taken at a Premiership football ground following his teams defeat there in an FA Cup match
• The pair were pictured in the crowd making offensive hand gestures which were described in the piece as "terrace bigotry"
• The man says his daughter has been ridiculed by the magazine and her face should have been pixelated as in other publications
• The magazine in which the photograph appeared says that on this occassion it was not necessary to obscure the childs face to protect her privacy
• They argue that the man and his daughter were in a public place and the subject matter of the photograph does not effect the childs welfare, but that she and the complainant made offensive gestures to the public and their behaviour is open to censure

Should the magazine have obscured the child's features?
Did the father's behaviour suggest that he did not want to draw the attention of the press to his child?