It's not a question of rights, it's a question of wrongs.

[andrewducker]

Over here Lilian, in her legal capacity, talks about the Mosley case, where a court decided that printing details of what Max Mosley got up to with bondage prostitutes was his own affair, and that the newspaper had no right to print pictures of it.

Which is interesting, and I have no particular argument with it. Except, as she points out, it doesn't half make you wonder where this particular slippery slope ends. If one of the prostitutes involved writes their autobiography, should that be banned? How about if they were updating their blog? How much expectation of privacy do we have when people are constantly updating the world about the state of their lives?

Certainly, spreading lies about people is wrong, but does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to say things that are true? If I were to write a blog post about having sex with Gordon Brown this morning, thus outing him to the world, would that be actionable? How about if I updated my facebook status? If I wrote a friend a letter? If I told someone down the pub? If I wrote it in my diary? At what point do we draw the line?

I'm not advocating any particular solution (although, as ever, I fall on the side of The Transparent Society), it's just one of the tensions in society that fascinates me.
[Poll #1231162]

Comments

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

I think, as usual, my line lies in an unworkable place - the consent of the person involved, or the reasonable presumption of consent. The less sure the consent is, the fewer details should be given. But that's how I'd deal with it morally, and it wouldn't work legally at all.

For cases without consent, I think there would be some kind of time restriction which correlated with the explosiveness of the gossip. So autobiographies = bad at the time, fine in 10 or 20 or 30 years.

You do always ask interesting questions!

[random-redhead.livejournal.com]

safe sane and consensual are the most important things in life.
A person should not be outed against their will or without their consent. If someone writes their autobiography or updates their blog, they have the right to say "I did ....." but not to say "so-and-so did ...." they have the right to open their own activities to the world but not other peoples.
Unless it actually is in the public interest that it should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities. Peoples sex lives are not in the public interest and the news of the world readership is not the proper authorities.

[andrewducker]

On the side of the devil's advocate, I believe that you don't have the right to tell me what I can say unless you can prove that direct harm will occur.

In the middle ground, of course, there's lots of room for ettiquette and politeness.

[meico.livejournal.com]

To play the devil's advocate to your devil's advocate... Can you prove that my wild swinging around of a machette in a crowded room will result in anyone's direct harm?

There's a lot to be said for unreasonable endangerment above and beyond provable harm- not that that applies to the root topic though.

[random-redhead.livejournal.com]

I believe that you don't have the right to tell me what I can say unless you can prove that direct harm will occur.

isn't this why we have a problem with overly intrusive journalists and paparazzi?
Maybe it should be "You don't have the right to pulblish something unless you can prove that good will come of it." (that is very poorly worded but I don't have time, and I was going for direct opposite to yours for speed)

[andrewducker]

I think the rules for newspapers and individuals should be different in this regard. If you wanted to write a blog entry about your spanking session with Max Mosely, I think you should be permitted. If a newspaper sets out to expose it, without good cause, they shouldn't be.

(Not to say I think you _should_ expose him - politeness should be a barrier here.)

[random-redhead.livejournal.com]

(Not to say I think you _should_ expose him - politeness should be a barrier here.)
yes, what you mentioned earlier about politeness between friends.
Actually, thats one of the things giving me satisfaction from this case. I would estimate that very few people will ever want to play with the woman who went to the paper ever again. Its a really big naughty step to be on and she'll be there for quite some time. (If my estimation of the scene is adequate)

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Trying to control or dictate other's speech because of what you [editorial you, not personal] think "should" be is a bit unworkable. There's no real way to enforce that standard without Big Brother style fascism.

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

i just don't know where i stand. i would have to think about each case on its own merits i think.

what a difficult question!

where do you stand? freedom i'm guessing?

[andrewducker]

I go more for freedom when it comes to law. But I'd generally urge people to be polite and considerate.

So I don't think there should be a law against outing people, but I do think that people should think about the effects of their actions and I wouldn't do it myself without a damn good reason.

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

I do think that people should think about the effects of their actions

that's precisely why we need laws though - i don't trust *most* people with anything. let alone thinking carefully about the effects their actions might have!

[andrewducker]

I agree. But I generally think that the effects of banning speech are worse for society than of having people being carelessly or callously embarassed.

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

good point.

i used to be very much against free speech when i first moved to edinburgh.

simply living in sunderland and seeing racist fucktards rally people in the pubs and make loud racist comments around the place kind of informed my opinions.

it's all too easy living away from that kind of thing to forget the freedom of silence/privacy too, but these days i generally sway towards the freedom of speech end.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Politeness is a good thing to mention: we need less laws and a more considerate world, in this area as in many others.

[captainlucy.livejournal.com]

That's a complexed issue. On the one hand, a free press is one of the best defences a free democracy can have against extremism of any kind or against anything which may take away from people's rights. And certainly, the private behaviour of politicians and a select few other people (e.g. the heads of major banks, or large national and international companies) can to a certain extent be considered fair game, as almost everything they do whether at work, at home or elsewhere, will impact to some degree on their ability to do their job. And certainly where politicians are involved, it is easy to see how them being with prostitutes could harm the "public good" - Christine Keeler comes to mind, for one.

On the other hand, what an individual gets up to in his or her private life should very much be their own business. "An it harm no other, do as thou will" and all that. And if the right to privacy of a sports tycoon such as Mosley is violated, certainly it becomes easier to violate the privacy of less and less prominent people, and there is no telling how far down that slope we could get if there were no controls put on things.

By-and-large, if there are potentially very serious public repercussions to a politician's private life, then certainly these are fair game for the press. But when it is for nothing more than generating salacious sensationalist headlines and selling an extra 100,000 copies, then it should be clamped down on, and hard. "Freedom of the Press", not "Freedom of the Press to make a mockery of Press Freedoms".

I suppose this is a roundabout and somewhat waffly way of saying judge each case on its merits.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

IAWTC

[chuma.livejournal.com]

I think with the Mosley case, Freedom of the Press <> Freedom of Speech. Nothing wrong was done, not in my eyes, and it is a clear invasion of privacy. I am pretty glad he won his court case, but also glad the damages given weren't large either.

As for the Dom who sold her story, she's finished I would say. With something where trust is paramount I would say that word will get around and that her 30 pieces of silver will have to last her a fair while.

Spreading truths isn't wrong as such, but there is the world of difference between word of mouth and sending in undercover cameras and people to spy on people for what has nothing to do with anyone else in my opinion. There is a line and the Newspaper crossed it. If, for instance, they printed an article with him having an affair with one of the racing drivers, THAT would be legitimate because it is less about his private life and more about the conflict of interest with his job.

The example you gave of outing Gordon Brown, that is clearly your personal decision to do so and as 1 half of the people involved have a right to speak out. If you were doing it for profit with a newspaper however, I would find your action abhorant.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can ask the question that way - it's contextual. My answer as given is freedom of expression, but if it was my lover who outed me without my consent (or whatever) they would for sure be in for a hard time.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

I didn't ask any questions...

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

sorry, my bad indent (as opposed to intent :-)

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Ah :D

*no longer confused* :)

[andrewducker]

I totally agree.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

The newspaper isn't a part of the act...because the prostitute is, surely that means it should be dealt with differently? I dont know how well this would work, but that's my first reaction anyway.

[zz]

i don't agree with companies, at least for-profit ones, having human rights (including FoS), just because they're legal persons or whatever the term is. a company always has more power than an individual, whereas the idea of human rights stems from the principle of equality.