Privacy: Where does it end?

[tibilicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13503847

As many across the UK will be aware the current issue of super injunctions or "gagging orders" has become a pretty mainstream topic. My personal view is that such orders are ridiculous but it does beg the question, where does an individuals right to privacy end? The current farce has seen one of the said individuals involved take out a lawsuit against twitter, essentially trying to sue 70,000 twitter users. So, are these hard done by celebrities right to demand privacy or is it a preposterous suggestion that in the digital age privacy can be truly safe guarded with twitter and other social networking sights essentially taking these Chinese whispers to a global level.

Oh, and lets not forget the fact that such injunctions are normally granted to the rich and powerful, one rule for them and all that..

[Fragony]

There is something to say for blocking media, UK papparazi's are horrible. Known people also have families

edit: question for you, at what point becomes your privacy a public affair

edit 2; it's an English/USA thing to be so interested in other peoples 24/7. You won't find anyone taking shots under the skirt when celebreties get out of their car over here. That is rather unique for UK and the US

[tibilicus]

edit: question for you, at what point becomes your privacy a public affair


Your privacy becomes a public affair when it becomes common knowledge. I have no problem with individuals trying to avoid the press but I do have a problem with individuals trying to stop the press from acting freely. Current injunctions are used simply just to stop news stories being printed, not to protect the individuals involved. A high earning individuals throwing money around to gag the press would be like me having an affair and then paying those who know about said affair not to tell anyone, which I'm pretty certain is a crime.

[HoreTore]

Yet again I find myself agreeing with most of what frags says.

Gagging, when we're not talking about the sexual act, is completely idiotic. However, the british press that prints this nonsense is even more moronic. I don't agree with using courts to stop it, but it should definitely not be printed. It has no relevance for the public whatsoever. It concerns Giggsy and the people close to him, not Johnny England.

And no, paying off those who know about your affair is not a crime in any way. An affair is a personal matter, and there is no law against it. It's only illegal to pay people to shut up about a crime.

This is a rather unique cultural trait for Britain and the US. Plenty of politicians in Norway have had affairs and divorces, but you'd find it very hwrd to find a Norwegian that can name even one. More than one is nigh impossible. We, like most of the world, don't care about this particular irrelavant nonsense*. I find that very comforting. But when will the brits be cured of their sexual deviations and intense interest in playing big brother on each other?


*....but just wait till one of them accept a bottle of champagne as a gift at an event and doesn't hand it over to the treasury immediatly....

[a completely inoffensive name]

Freedom of the press is essentially a freedom of information. Despite our pride on having a right to privacy, rights conflict sometimes and this is one of those times. The right for information effects all of us while the right to privacy effects only one individual in this scenario, so the right to information must be upheld. Let the press say what they want to say and abolish those gagging orders.

[Strike For The South]

abolish those gagging orders.

Well the weekend just lost a bit of luster....

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well the weekend just lost a bit of luster....

I meant from the government Strike. In my house, my rules are still final.

[rory_20_uk]

The famous make their money by being famous. They then commit acts that they do not wish to be common knowledge, knowing before they do them that they will hurt others / tarnish their own reputation.

This chain of events has not altered for hundreds of years. No famous people can decry that they had no idea that tabloids would make much of every facet of their life. And often they are gaining a lot of money for them doing so, both directly and indirectly. Their partners too are aware where the vast sums of money they have for their lives is coming from. If they don't like it - divorce them as can any other partner. The children are the only ones who had no choice in the matter, but then the law should not be there to assist those who are selfish to do as they wish.

There was always the choice to have the following courses:


Be a nobody, and do whatever you want as no one cares - but be a lot poorer and no people to massage your ego.
Behave in a manner that you are happy with other people knowing about.
Be a narcissistic waste of space and deal with the consequences.


But of course the option that is wanted is the third with all the benefits of the first. A life of getting their own way has meant they see themselves as the "victims" in this, and they have the money to buy the lawyers with the clout to get their "mistakes" covered up.

~:smoking:

[The Stranger]

Yet again I find myself agreeing with most of what frags says.

Gagging, when we're not talking about the sexual act, is completely idiotic. However, the british press that prints this nonsense is even more moronic. I don't agree with using courts to stop it, but it should definitely not be printed. It has no relevance for the public whatsoever. It concerns Giggsy and the people close to him, not Johnny England.

And no, paying off those who know about your affair is not a crime in any way. An affair is a personal matter, and there is no law against it. It's only illegal to pay people to shut up about a crime.

This is a rather unique cultural trait for Britain and the US. Plenty of politicians in Norway have had affairs and divorces, but you'd find it very hwrd to find a Norwegian that can name even one. More than one is nigh impossible. We, like most of the world, don't care about this particular irrelavant nonsense*. I find that very comforting. But when will the brits be cured of their sexual deviations and intense interest in playing big brother on each other?


*....but just wait till one of them accept a bottle of champagne as a gift at an event and doesn't hand it over to the treasury immediatly....

may not have any relevance but thousands if not millions of people read this crap otherwise it would never have been such big business. lets face it most people rather read gossip about a fallen celeb than intelectual or scientific discoveries and political developments.

[The Stranger]

Freedom of the press is essentially a freedom of information. Despite our pride on having a right to privacy, rights conflict sometimes and this is one of those times. The right for information effects all of us while the right to privacy effects only one individual in this scenario, so the right to information must be upheld. Let the press say what they want to say and abolish those gagging orders.


freedom of information does not mean you have the right to print anything you want. there are also laws against slander and such. and to be honest i find it rather distasteful how most papparazi press gets into peoples faces.

for example, in holland we have a program about people who violate traffic rules and its being filmed and shown on television. every so now and then a person gets angry, not because he gets a fine but because its being filmed. imo in such a case he is in his right, he deserves the penalty for his actions but its not a public affair wether he gets fined or not. it has nothing to do with freedom of information and press this is simply amusement over someones misfortune and that should never triumph of the individual right of privacy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

freedom of information does not mean you have the right to print anything you want. there are also laws against slander and such. and to be honest i find it rather distasteful how most papparazi press gets into peoples faces.
I don't recall saying that people have the right to print whatever they want. I merely said that forgoing the right to information is an infringement on everyone while forgoing the right to privacy will only affect one specific individual. It makes sense to favor the former than the latter.

I do believe however that when it comes to certain accusations, that privacy should be upheld. Perhaps I should have been more clear in saying that I believe in the statements behind my previous post when the issue is financial.

Still get rid of the gagging orders though, because that is too much trouble and as someone said already, used mostly by the rich and famous.



for example, in holland we have a program about people who violate traffic rules and its being filmed and shown on television. every so now and then a person gets angry, not because he gets a fine but because its being filmed. imo in such a case he is in his right, he deserves the penalty for his actions but its not a public affair wether he gets fined or not. it has nothing to do with freedom of information and press this is simply amusement over someones misfortune and that should never triumph of the individual right of privacy.

Meh, it is a bit more complicated then that. If someone has the right to privacy for any crime, you leave open the ability for shady things to go on. Trying to apply a right to privacy for CEO's who are under investigation allows the rich and powerful a greater ability to circumvent the law.

I don't think anyone here enjoys the idiotic use of filming everyone at the worst moments of their life, but it is similar to how we can agree not to enjoy the ability of neo-Nazi's to speak somewhere in the midwest. It's part of reality when you have such a right prevalent in a society. People will say disgusting things and people will film others at jerkish moments.

[The Stranger]

I don't recall saying that people have the right to print whatever they want. I merely said that forgoing the right to information is an infringement on everyone while forgoing the right to privacy will only affect one specific individual. It makes sense to favor the former than the latter.

I do believe however that when it comes to certain accusations, that privacy should be upheld. Perhaps I should have been more clear in saying that I believe in the statements behind my previous post when the issue is financial.

Still get rid of the gagging orders though, because that is too much trouble and as someone said already, used mostly by the rich and famous.



Meh, it is a bit more complicated then that. If someone has the right to privacy for any crime, you leave open the ability for shady things to go on. Trying to apply a right to privacy for CEO's who are under investigation allows the rich and powerful a greater ability to circumvent the law.

I don't think anyone here enjoys the idiotic use of filming everyone at the worst moments of their life, but it is similar to how we can agree not to enjoy the ability of neo-Nazi's to speak somewhere in the midwest. It's part of reality when you have such a right prevalent in a society. People will say disgusting things and people will film others at jerkish moments.

you would say so at first. but we exactly have those rights and laws to protect the individual because their interests get forgone and forgotten all to easy for the "greater good". they should be balanced equal.

a famous example for this problem is used by ethical thinkers, i forgot the name of the case. its not exactly the same like the example i give now because this is about privacy.

if one person has a secret which can help the entire community survive a serious disaster, does the community have the right to get that one person to tell his secret by all means? even if by making this secret public that one persons life will be ruined?

now change this example a bit. if killing one person can make the entire community survive serious disaster, does the community have the right to take the life of that person?

imo a private affair stops where it becomes a public affair, imo when it involves more than one person or a group of consenting adults. the public affair stops where it impedes on the rights of the individual. and both affairs must stop where they cross the line of the law.

this i hope answer your reply to my example. when i cross a red light and get fined, that is nobodys business but between me and the law. therefor the press has no right to cover it if i dont want that. however if im a ceo and ive commited fraude then my actions effect not just myself, but alot more people and these people have a right to know what happened. and thats where the press should come in.

your right of filming stops when you shove it into my nose, the same way your right of preaching neo-nazi ideals freely stops the moment you set foot out of private property. then you have to consider those other people around you with everything you do.

its a difficult issue, and a thin line between when its right or wrong to choose the right of the public over that of the individual. but one thing atleast should always be so when it happens, a clear and important cause will be served by it. and i simply do not see this in the case of papparazzi press. they say the public has a right to know what underware their favorite star is wearing but its pure bs.

[Fragony]

Excellent post TS. Just an observation, it at least seems that with our Anglo-Saxon friends being a public figure automatically makes you public property. In most of Europe and especially our little swamp privacy is just about sacred. No matter how famous you are you can walk around freely, everybody will pretend they don't notice you unless it's some grand occasion where we have 'permission'

[rory_20_uk]

Crossing a red light is a public matter as your actions can result in injury to others. It's unlikely that people who drive through one red light will never do it again.


The papparazzi are scum. Full stop. But sadly they fill the desire for gossip for a large proportion of the populace. Such creatures as WAGs have no intrinsic worth, bar whose arm they are currently on. Their whole "fame" is built on this pathetic gossip of what they wear, where they go, what they might or might not have done. Even the troglodyte Rooney has a skill. So, like an empty balloon, they have to be kept inflated by these very acts. And they rarely complain about the attention when they like it / it is positive. Only when it is not going their way do we suddenly get pleas for privicy... until they're ready to have the big expose in some magazine where they pour out their true hurt about some life changing tragedy, such as a footballer decided to bonk another pneumatic peroxide blonde.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Aren't they then 'in function' at these moments, playing the star, part of their professional life. Doesn't excuse intrusion when they are of-duty

[The Stranger]

Crossing a red light is a public matter as your actions can result in injury to others. It's unlikely that people who drive through one red light will never do it again.


~:smoking:

the moment i hit someone it will become public in the sense that the public has a right to know about it. when i dont it is only public in the sense of the law, which is equal for and to everyone.

if these things were a public affair then whenever i would have gotten a speeding ticked, the entire neighbourhood should be notified. and when a person moves to another neighbourhood, they should get a bulletin with that persons entire history in it. and visa versa.

imo that would just be a horrible world in which the past will always haunt you and no fresh starts will be allowed. i dont agree with you that we should only be left alone in our privacy because we are nobodys and nobody cares, but because it is our right to a have a little bit of space for ourself to retreat to in a world which is so crowded. and this right should be there for the nobodys as well as for the rich and the famous.

[rory_20_uk]

They have no "function" as they are not professionals. The only thing they do is be close to a professional in a personal relationship. Often, if they have a job it does not form a part of this fame. They get invited to the parties which are going to be swarming with media because of their fame, no other reason. If you don't like that - don't go. If you won't want to be photographed half cut and croping someone - don't get drunk.

If they are playing a star, then there is both the aspects of ascendence and fall. Most stars follow both and most stars are happy to have the former and not the latter, but they are both intertwined. If you don't like the package, then don't get involved with it.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

See that's what I mean, you call it 'the package'. But nobody is public property, no matter how mucht they publicly appear. Hands of when it concerns the person behind the professional attention-whore

[The Stranger]

They have no "function" as they are not professionals. The only thing they do is be close to a professional in a personal relationship. Often, if they have a job it does not form a part of this fame. They get invited to the parties which are going to be swarming with media because of their fame, no other reason. If you don't like that - don't go. If you won't want to be photographed half cut and croping someone - don't get drunk.

If they are playing a star, then there is both the aspects of ascendence and fall. Most stars follow both and most stars are happy to have the former and not the latter, but they are both intertwined. If you don't like the package, then don't get involved with it.

~:smoking:

thats not entirely fair, because their fame is bestowed upon them, usually for doing something they like and that others envy or appreciate. they are still human beings, and as the law should apply to them as to the rest of us, they deserve the same rights as do the rest of us.

i agree with you though, that when you dont want the negative side of something, you shouldnt pursue it, and if you find the positive side of it to tempting to resist, you should take the negative with it. but being famous does not mean that one has asked for it or that one was looking for it. some people do willingly search the attention, and they should also take the negative side of the attention they seeked which is limit in privacy. but not all famous people look for attention and yet are harrassed at every turn they take.

[Fragony]

thats not entirely fair, because their fame is bestowed upon them, usually for doing something they like

Ya.

Demanding privacy, let's take Patrick Swaysey, news was that he has cancer. K, it's news I guess. But then there were pics of him leaving the clinic, obviously devastated. More pics, getting skinny. Sick bastards who are interested in that they are psychological vampires and these 'journalists' their suppliers

[HoreTore]

It's not just that it's part of a "package".

A question we should ask ourselves is whether this "package" is beneficial to society or not. Public figures, like politicians and CEO's, perform vital tasks in our society. Are we scaring off people we would've benefitted from by behaving this way?

[Fragony]

It's not just that it's part of a "package".

A question we should ask ourselves is whether this "package" is beneficial to society or not. Public figures, like politicians and CEO's, perform vital tasks in our society. Are we scaring off people we would've benefitted from by behaving this way?

Just a different package but creepier imho, I don't have to do anything, at all.

[Greyblades]

It's not just that it's part of a "package".

A question we should ask ourselves is whether this "package" is beneficial to society or not. Public figures, like politicians and CEO's, perform vital tasks in our society. Are we scaring off people we would've benefitted from by behaving this way?

Hmm, well there have been people voted into office more for thier people skills than thier ability to govern.

[HoreTore]

Hmm, well there have been people voted into office more for thier people skills than thier ability to govern.

True. But does two wrongs make a right?

[Greyblades]

Are the two wrongs part of a chain of events that result in a good end? That phrase bugs me.

[HoreTore]

Are the two wrongs part of a chain of events that result in a good end? That phrase bugs me.

No, the meaning is that two wrongs don't make a right... It's usually about someone doing something bad because something else bad has happened, and is offered as an explanation that what he did was still wrong. But it's used very liberally nowadays...

[The Stranger]

ya... and now weve drifted to empty phrases...

[Slyspy]

If I get caught commiting adultery then most people who know me and a good number who know of me will find out. If a large proportion of the population know of me then they will find out. It is foolish to believe otherwise. If you don't want to be found out then don't do the deed. Preventing people from publishing facts, no matter how trivial they are in the grand scheme of things, seems wrong. If you are harassed or slandered then deal with those crimes rather than the "crime" of printing the truth.

[HoreTore]

O'Reilly? Everyone will know it if you're famous?

Try your theory in a country without the vile press the UK has. Let's take Norway, since that's one I am familiar with... I see no reason to believe that our elected officials are less adulterous than their british counterparts. But can you point to a Norwegian politician who has had an affair? Didn't think so. I consider myself as someone with way above average interest in Norwegian politics, and I can't come up with anyone. It would take some heavy thinking and googling for me to find anyone. I have some vague memory of some affair surfacing with a biography of a deceased politician, but that's it.

And this isn't unique to Norway. This is how the world outside the british press works. We don't know. We don't care. We shouldn't care. And no matter how famous the person may be, we won't hear a word of it.

[The Stranger]

If I get caught commiting adultery then most people who know me and a good number who know of me will find out. If a large proportion of the population know of me then they will find out. It is foolish to believe otherwise. If you don't want to be found out then don't do the deed. Preventing people from publishing facts, no matter how trivial they are in the grand scheme of things, seems wrong. If you are harassed or slandered then deal with those crimes rather than the "crime" of printing the truth.

fact is, that its a private affair. my marriage is between me and my wife and if i cheat on my wife it becomes a matter between me, my wife and possibly the law. no other person has the right to poke their noses into it unless one of the parties informs them. ofcourse you may find out if you are my brother-in-law, but you dont have the right to camp outside my house and dig into my marriage. neither does the press or the public. its just none of ur bussiness.

if these papparazi press journalists would actually divert 10% of their energy to a more useful cause or covering important matters the world would be a much better place... cheating sets a bad example for the children and those celebs are suposed rolemodels, but what example do the parents set, the real rolemodels, gloating over some personally unknown human beings misfortune.



if you dont want to get caught then you shouldnt commit the crime is true and fair. but no one should publically be put the to stand for rotten apples to be thrown at just because they happen to be famous. i doubt you realise that by papparazi reasoning i am allowed to seek you out. camp in your garden, take pictures of your naked wife and post them on the internet. just because i happen to have an active interest in you and there are plenty of people who are willing to look at it.

[Fragony]

If I get caught commiting adultery then most people who know me and a good number who know of me will find out. If a large proportion of the population know of me then they will find out. It is foolish to believe otherwise. If you don't want to be found out then don't do the deed. Preventing people from publishing facts, no matter how trivial they are in the grand scheme of things, seems wrong. If you are harassed or slandered then deal with those crimes rather than the "crime" of printing the truth.

I most fundamentally disagree, your private life isn't anyone's business, if they want to know anyway they are sick imho but alas, People who want to dig that deep are just as bad as rapists

[The Stranger]

but there are the odd cases

ive heard about one yesterday.

a surgeon had worked in germany and there his amateuristic skill had already cost numerous patients their health of worse, their life. they fired him in germany. then he went on to work in holland, some german officials knew about this but didnt warn the dutch hospital because they said, they could not intrude on this mans privacy, and if they would notify the hospital it would be against the law (german law i presume).

imo this is an example where the mans privacy should no longer count equal to the public cause. his failure to meet proffesional standards no longer only effects him but it effects numerous other people. here the press should be digging into. but no instead of investigating such affairs they are reporting the wedding of two people and taking pictures of drunk people without underwear, two quite common and uninteresting things. this man shouldve been stopped immediatly. his privacy regarding his profession no longer applies when he is causing destruction and death because he is an amateur. this still doesnt mean anyone has the right to enquire into his marital problems or that he must answer if it has absolutely no relation to why he has been butchering people in the hospital.

[Fragony]

Congratulations it's a Dutchie, if it isn't your business knowing why do you want to know? Get a life of your own no :balloon2:

[The Stranger]

your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

privacy rights and law contain more than just papparazi bs. its a pretty complicated legal issue.

[Fragony]

your post makes absolutely no sense at all.

privacy rights and law contain more than just papparazi bs. its a pretty complicated legal issue.

Oh, which part? We actually agree, need to know bases, next time I'll rap it maybe that helps

[The Stranger]

nevermind -_-

we did actually agree tho. we should drink to that. yesterday i was on the hoge veluwe and bought a bottle of Zwienebitter. come join me?

[Fragony]

nevermind -_-

we did actually agree tho. we should drink to that. yesterday i was on the hoge veluwe and bought a bottle of Zwienebitter. come join me?

Joining anything on de Veluwe is always scary trust me I'm from there. Run

[Slyspy]

I most fundamentally disagree, your private life isn't anyone's business, if they want to know anyway they are sick imho but alas, People who want to dig that deep are just as bad as rapists

You misunderstand. I don't believe that it is their business at all, but in reality there is nothing I can do about it. People like to talk, people like a gossip. In cases like Giggs the super injunction becomes a hammer to break a nut, in this case an ineffectual one, which simply makes matters worse. That Giggs had an affair has essentially been all over the media for months. Not explicitly of course, but there nevertheless. Hint to people that there is a secret out there and it only makes them more interested.

I regard the danger posed by court orders about which you cannot speak as far more serious than the exposure of the facts regarding a footballer's affair, a businessman's dubious dealings or a councillor's indescretion.

Any untruths can be tackled using the existing laws on slander or libel in a public ccourt, as is right and proper.

[Fragony]

If it affects him why wouldn't he go to court to stop them from publishing, it might hurt his career his 'brand' (think Hugh Grant), and for what, stupid curiosity. Freedom of press isn't at stake here, it's completely irrelevant to know what he does in his private life. Can't you see the difference between a footballers affair and a businessmen dubious dealings

[a completely inoffensive name]

you would say so at first. but we exactly have those rights and laws to protect the individual because their interests get forgone and forgotten all to easy for the "greater good". they should be balanced equal.

a famous example for this problem is used by ethical thinkers, i forgot the name of the case. its not exactly the same like the example i give now because this is about privacy.

if one person has a secret which can help the entire community survive a serious disaster, does the community have the right to get that one person to tell his secret by all means? even if by making this secret public that one persons life will be ruined?

now change this example a bit. if killing one person can make the entire community survive serious disaster, does the community have the right to take the life of that person?
We can all sit around here and pat ourselves on the back for saying no that we would all gladly let everyone die to uphold morals and principles we have created in our head. Or we can be realistic here and recognize that one person's life != everyone's life. There is no one to praise us for sticking to our principles but ourselves, and we if we all die who are we trying to impress?

I am in agreement that things should all be in balance, but individuals have supremacy over the whole up until the point where that individual is risking the lives over everyone else through their actions. In your case, by withholding a secret.



imo a private affair stops where it becomes a public affair, imo when it involves more than one person or a group of consenting adults. the public affair stops where it impedes on the rights of the individual. and both affairs must stop where they cross the line of the law.
That line you have drawn is vague though and isn't really of any use. Anybody can come up with a million different ways for why any private affair is actually a public one because of some x,y and z fiscal reason. The art of bull**** is well rehearsed among many sleazeballs.



this i hope answer your reply to my example. when i cross a red light and get fined, that is nobodys business but between me and the law. therefor the press has no right to cover it if i dont want that. however if im a ceo and ive commited fraude then my actions effect not just myself, but alot more people and these people have a right to know what happened. and thats where the press should come in.
All government actions should be held accountable though, large and small. There should be a record that on this year, on this day, at this time, so and so ran a red light and was fined x amount of dollars in accordance with this law. Why does the name need to be published at all? Well, how else is the record going to be verified unless we are just going to trust that every cop or police department out there will give accurate reports.

I'm not trying to argue that there should be no privacy in any case, but when it comes to the boundaries of when and where information should be restricted on government records and actions in accordance to the rights of the individual it can't really come down to "why should anyone else know about my traffic ticket?". Well lets be honest here, there is a big difference my response to that than the question, "why should anyone else know about this girl's claim I tried to rape her at a party?". In the former, my reaction is meh because who honestly cares about a traffic ticket, whereas if there is a situation like in the latter, even just the accusation of being a pedophile, or a sexual molestor or a rapist can completely isolate you socially and job wise for the rest of your life if the information is public and spread everywhere.



your right of filming stops when you shove it into my nose, the same way your right of preaching neo-nazi ideals freely stops the moment you set foot out of private property. then you have to consider those other people around you with everything you do.
This is true and I agree with you.



its a difficult issue, and a thin line between when its right or wrong to choose the right of the public over that of the individual. but one thing atleast should always be so when it happens, a clear and important cause will be served by it. and i simply do not see this in the case of papparazzi press. they say the public has a right to know what underware their favorite star is wearing but its pure bs.
We both agree that this isn't clear cut but I feel like taking a step further than you in saying that the line is as fuzzy as it is thin. Papparazzi are bs, but they follow the rules nevertheless. They gather on the sidewalk and usually only get closer in public areas like parks, gas stations etc.. Going any further to say you can't take pics period is getting into dangerous territory that needs to be evaluated.

[naut]

Privacy usually ends at the y. Taking it any further makes it a different word entirely.

[The Stranger]

[QUOTE]We can all sit around here and pat ourselves on the back for saying no that we would all gladly let everyone die to uphold morals and principles we have created in our head. Or we can be realistic here and recognize that one person's life != everyone's life. There is no one to praise us for sticking to our principles but ourselves, and we if we all die who are we trying to impress?

I am in agreement that things should all be in balance, but individuals have supremacy over the whole up until the point where that individual is risking the lives over everyone else through their actions. In your case, by withholding a secret.

That line you have drawn is vague though and isn't really of any use. Anybody can come up with a million different ways for why any private affair is actually a public one because of some x,y and z fiscal reason. The art of bull**** is well rehearsed among many sleazeballs.

the one with the secret is relatively easy, though still a complicated issue, compared to the slippery slope it puts you on by accepting that the group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group. will you draw the line at murder? but why would you stop there?




All government actions should be held accountable though, large and small. There should be a record that on this year, on this day, at this time, so and so ran a red light and was fined x amount of dollars in accordance with this law. Why does the name need to be published at all? Well, how else is the record going to be verified unless we are just going to trust that every cop or police department out there will give accurate reports.

for me this is a different point. privacy ends where the law begins. but it is an issue between you and those who uphold the law. and when no third party is involved in some way, being it as victim or as culprit, there is no need for anyone to meddle in those affairs, and neither do they have the right to do so.


I'm not trying to argue that there should be no privacy in any case, but when it comes to the boundaries of when and where information should be restricted on government records and actions in accordance to the rights of the individual it can't really come down to "why should anyone else know about my traffic ticket?". Well lets be honest here, there is a big difference my response to that than the question, "why should anyone else know about this girl's claim I tried to rape her at a party?". In the former, my reaction is meh because who honestly cares about a traffic ticket, whereas if there is a situation like in the latter, even just the accusation of being a pedophile, or a sexual molestor or a rapist can completely isolate you socially and job wise for the rest of your life if the information is public and spread everywhere.

i entirely agree with you. but there is a big difference between the two case, which ive already stated before, not because rape is more severe but because rape involves more than the two parties of individual and the law, it involves a third party and thus its no longer a private matter. but your last point is also true and thats why its such a delicate matter, and even in cases of rape where more than the two parties of individual and law are involved i would vouch to keep it between the involved matters, atleast untill someone is proven to be guilty. but i understand the need for people to know what happened, if only to sooth them, when someone is murdered in their neighbourhood.

[Slyspy]

If it affects him why wouldn't he go to court to stop them from publishing, it might hurt his career his 'brand' (think Hugh Grant), and for what, stupid curiosity. Freedom of press isn't at stake here, it's completely irrelevant to know what he does in his private life. Can't you see the difference between a footballers affair and a businessmen dubious dealings

No, and neither does the law since the secrecy of both can be protected using super-injunctions.

Besides which, taking it back to Giggs, it is his own actions which have hurt his "brand". You must take the consequences of your actions, so must he.

There was an interesting example in the Sunday Times pointing out that if a person who cannot be named due to an injuction reveals even the existence of that injunction then that unnamed person can then be jailed. And yet that injunction could not be mentioned in court. So you could end up with an unamed person going to jail after action brought by persons unknown for reasons which cannot be spoken of even in a closed court. That can't be right.

[Fragony]

That the affairs of a football-player has as much an impact on his career as the dubious dealings of a businessman is only because people like to feed on other people's life. The dubious dealings are worth printing, but people waiting for a haircut made it just the same as the affairs of a football-player. Stop checking the sheets of your neighbour to find odd spots and this isn't necessary, the line won't be breeched if you just don't. It's all on you for making public figures private property, they aren' they just play football

[a completely inoffensive name]

the one with the secret is relatively easy, though still a complicated issue, compared to the slippery slope it puts you on by accepting that the group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group. will you draw the line at murder? but why would you stop there?
I'm not that general with my principles. The group is allowed to intervene at the cost of an individual for the benefit of the group if the survival of the group as whole including the individual intervened with is threatened. That is the difference. If one man is holding everyone hostage, whether through malicious intent or through ignorance, it is not acceptable to hold onto principles just to feel good as we all die. If the situation can be fixed without violence than that is obviously the better route to go, but it is not a slippery slide when you have a clear line drawn in the sand of not until our lives are threatened can we intervene. Not for an inconvenience, but for real serious stuff.



for me this is a different point. privacy ends where the law begins. but it is an issue between you and those who uphold the law. and when no third party is involved in some way, being it as victim or as culprit, there is no need for anyone to meddle in those affairs, and neither do they have the right to do so.
I agree that no one has a need to meddle, but that is different than a right to know yes? Knowing does not necessarily mean allowing action by third parties.



i entirely agree with you. but there is a big difference between the two case, which ive already stated before, not because rape is more severe but because rape involves more than the two parties of individual and the law, it involves a third party and thus its no longer a private matter. but your last point is also true and thats why its such a delicate matter, and even in cases of rape where more than the two parties of individual and law are involved i would vouch to keep it between the involved matters, atleast untill someone is proven to be guilty. but i understand the need for people to know what happened, if only to sooth them, when someone is murdered in their neighbourhood.
Yes, it is very difficult to discern between what should and shouldn't be public. In fact, in the conclusion we have agreed upon, I don't think it can be denied that having such an exception for the rape accusation case is solely because of the cultural reaction we as a society have to those that are even merely accused as rapists. So therefore we must admit that there might not even be a line that can be drawn since it might as well shift every time our cultural reactions and expectations change. So how can we justify not allowing paparazzi to follow celebrities or not allowing third parties to find out about your traffic ticket on such shaky grounds? It is no longer a right's issue in the sense of "I have this right and always will." Now it is conditional based on culture, which might as well not make it a "right" at all, at least in the natural sense.