英国小报侵犯名人隐私由来已久,2011年更是备受关注的一年。除《世界新闻报》因窃听丑闻停刊外,欧洲人权法院先后下达两宗报章侵犯名人隐私的重要判决,都源自英国。镜报集团诉英国案与其他连串判决,确立了英国法院应如何按《欧洲人权公约》处理新闻自由与个人隐私的矛盾、强化了隐私信息的保障,使英国报章在报道时受到的规范较以往大得多,包括在公众地方采访名人及其后刊登有关照片,都要顾及当事人的隐私,而报章不能笼统地以公共利益抗辩。数月后,另一宗判决莫斯利诉英国案,则指出英国目前的隐私法律已经足够,毋须引入事前通知。这意味欧洲人权法院暂且无意进一步扩大隐私保障,缓解英国小报所面临的变革压力,也避免了小报的劣行殃及整个行业,给新闻自由带来更大的限制。在现今社会,媒体发展蓬勃、摄影技术不断改进,但另方面个人权利亦日益受到重视,采访报道与保护名人隐私之间所产生的矛盾,自然越演越烈。这种情况并非英国和西方社会所独有。近年在台湾亦发生多宗因媒体追访报道名人引致的官司。2011年7月,就记者因追踪拍摄名人被罚款有否违宪,台湾大法官会议作出解释。本论文探讨这三个分别来自东、西方的重要判决,重点问题包括:法院如何审理隐私权与新闻自由的冲突?近年的趋势如何?判决有何异同? British tabloids infringe upon the privacy of celebrities for a long time, 2011 is a year of great concern. With the exception of the “News of the World,” which stopped publication of the eavesdropping scandal, the European Court of Human Rights has issued two important judgments that the newspapers violated the privacy of celebrities, all of which originated in the United Kingdom. Mirror Group v. United Kingdom and other series of judgments, established how the English courts should deal with the conflict between press freedom and personal privacy according to the “European Convention on Human Rights,” strengthened the protection of private information and made the norms of the British newspapers being reported more Much larger in the past, including interviewing celebrities in public places and subsequent publication of photographs, should take into account the privacy of the parties concerned, and newspapers can not generally defend the public interest. A few months later, another sentence, Mossley v. United Kingdom, pointed out that the current privacy laws in the United Kingdom were sufficient and no advance notice was required. This means that for the time being the European Court of Human Rights has no intention of further expanding privacy protection and alleviating the pressure of reform on the tabloids in the United Kingdom. It also avoids the negative effects of tabloids affecting the entire industry and bringing greater restrictions on freedom of the press. In today’s society, the media is booming and the technology of photography is constantly improving. However, on the other hand, individual rights are increasingly being taken seriously. The contradiction between the coverage of the press coverage and the protection of the privacy of celebrities naturally becomes more and more intense. This situation is not unique to both British and Western societies. In recent years, there have also been a number of lawsuits in Taiwan caused by media coverage of celebrities. In July 2011, a meeting of Taiwan’s judges was explained as to whether a reporter was fined for tracking filming celebrities. This paper explores these three important judgments from the East and the West, respectively. The key issues include: how the courts handle the conflict between privacy and freedom of the press? What are the recent trends? What are the similarities and differences?