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

[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)