|
Post by trubble on Jan 17, 2009 14:40:17 GMT
I'm currently listening to 'Unreliable Evidence' on BBC Radio 4. Listen Again here: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00glndk (available for 4 more days) Clive Anderson presents the series analysing the legal issues of the day. Max Mosley's successful court action against News of the World for invading his privacy has sent shockwaves through the newspaper world, which fears that this and earlier judgements will inhibit investigative journalism.
How can the courts balance the conflicting rights of privacy and freedom of speech?The programme bases its discussion on the legality of both but there is also a moral case to be made that we should have both rights. So when they conflict, how do we choose which right is more important?
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Jan 17, 2009 19:50:47 GMT
I don't care what "slebs" and the like get up to in private, but when it comes to politicos who spend their time preaching morals and how we should live...well, they are fair game for journo scum. Journo scum who make a career out of reporting this stuff should also be regularly spied on and exposed for being hypocrits. AH
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 17, 2009 22:27:28 GMT
I don't care what "slebs" and the like get up to in private, but when it comes to politicos who spend their time preaching morals and how we should live...well, they are fair game for journo scum. Journo scum who make a career out of reporting this stuff should also be regularly spied on and exposed for being hypocrits. AH I used to work with many journalists. It is a noble profession, held by the scum of the earth. I love them. They crack me up. So yes, of course they are hypocrites, but the good journalists have cojones of steel and will speak the truth and shame the devil, despite being horrendously personally flawed themselves. I've never met a foreign correspondent that I didn't fall in love with . . although they were a particularly adulterous, drunken, lechorous, hypocritical class of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 17, 2009 22:30:29 GMT
But to the bigger question: Freedom of Speech vs Right to PRivacy.
The UK has particularly struggled with the ECHR right to privacy, as this is not a traditional right in the UK (cf Freedom of Speech which is a traditional right.) The Brits have never quite got it worked out on the right to privacy.
Which is why the Naomi Campbell and Catherine Zeta Jones cases have been so fascinating.
The Brits struggle particularly with the 'right to privacy' when it comes to sexual matters, whereas the French (for example and contrast) felt that it was perfectly right to expose Mitterand's political hypocrisy while remaining Schtum on the facts of his private life and mistress/daughter stuff.
No answers. Just waffle. But what a good op.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 18, 2009 12:39:47 GMT
NO right is totally sacrosanct. you have the right to privacy, as long as you don't do something that requires an invasion of that right, such as incurring a search warrant. you have the right to freedom of speech, as long as you don't yell "fire" in the theatre. in the case of journalism, NO public figure has a legitimate right to total privacy. the individual who chooses to put himself in the public domain has no right to an expectation that his private life will not undergo strict scrutiny. he voluntarily gives the public the right to know everything about his private life
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 18, 2009 19:07:28 GMT
I don't care what "slebs" and the like get up to in private, but when it comes to politicos who spend their time preaching morals and how we should live...well, they are fair game for journo scum. Journo scum who make a career out of reporting this stuff should also be regularly spied on and exposed for being hypocrits. AH I used to work with many journalists. It is a noble profession, held by the scum of the earth. I love them. They crack me up. So yes, of course they are hypocrites, but the good journalists have cojones of steel and will speak the truth and shame the devil, despite being horrendously personally flawed themselves. I've never met a foreign correspondent that I didn't fall in love with . . although they were a particularly adulterous, drunken, lechorous, hypocritical class of humanity. You are describing perfectly my journalist neighbour, Jim. He's a hard hitting political journalist - the ones that write about lovely houses and so on seem to be nice but dull - the real ones are hilarious. I never know if I'm going to get hugged or torn into when I meet Jim.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 19, 2009 6:10:00 GMT
NO right is totally sacrosanct. you have the right to privacy, as long as you don't do something that requires an invasion of that right, such as incurring a search warrant. you have the right to freedom of speech, as long as you don't yell "fire" in the theatre. in the case of journalism, NO public figure has a legitimate right to total privacy. the individual who chooses to put himself in the public domain has no right to an expectation that his private life will not undergo strict scrutiny. he voluntarily gives the public the right to know everything about his private life Even if it's of no public value apart from curiosity or voyeurism?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 19, 2009 6:30:26 GMT
and lol riot, Clive Anderson refers to 'British law' so it does exist as a concept Then he was being lazy. The right to privacy laws will, of course, be cross-UK should they ever be clarified/written because we signed up to these laws in all UK jurisdictions under the ECHR. Some law is genuinely UK wide through primary legislation in the UK Parliament. Usually not a good idea - e.g. the 1979 Sale of Goods Act, which fails to take into account the different concepts of property - very different - in the two mainland UK jurisdictions and has caused all kinds of legal problems. It is rare. Some is common throughout the uK without being UK wide because of international treaty law (such as ECHR) or because it is an area of genuine international legal agreement, such as contract or copyright which tend to be common across several jurisdictions. I'm shutting up now . . . .don't push my buttons bee-atch.
|
|