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

[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