Freedom of the Press

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

This article was what got me thinking.

When does "Freedom of the Press" start to infringe on the rights of other people? We all know paparazzi are annoying, but when does it cross the line into illegal? I keep hearing of these stories, and then the spokesman for the media says "The Appeal Court's judgment ... represents a very worrying threat to the freedom of the press and to the public's right to know".

Do we really have a right to know the private thoughts of Prince Charles? Do we really have a right to see pictures of Britney's crotch (her own fault, sure, but they still snapped photos)? There doesn't seem to be any clear line that the press is not allowed to cross, but I think there should be. If people wanted to know all about my personal life (which they don't), I think it should be up to me whether I provide details or not, not some crazy tabloid journalist who likes stealing and trespassing.

So as for me, I think the freedom of the press was supposed to be more in place to keep governments in check and to let people know what their tax dollars are going towards... not to make the lives of famous individuals miserable. The media have to be accountable too, and if they abuse their freedoms too much they may risk losing them.

[notasfatasmike]

Public figures (and I'm using this in a broader sense than it is usually intended, expanding it to include celebrities, etc.) have a right to a private life as well. I really think that a culture has slowly grown over the past, I don't know, 100 years or so in which people somehow think that if someone is famous for something, the public IMMEDIATELY receives the right to know about everything they do. I really disagree with that. Just because someone is good at a sport or is elected to an office, that doesn't mean we get to know what they write in their diaries.

Of course, there are some cases where I'm conflicted, such as when politicians make deals out of the public eye. In their case, I think people have a right to know everything they do relating to their job, whether or not it's technically done in public or private.

[greed]

Originally Posted by notasfatasmike

Public figures (and I'm using this in a broader sense than it is usually intended, expanding it to include celebrities, etc.)

This is the big problem as far as I'm concerned, celebrities and athletes, yes deserve their privacy and the public right to know in that case is largely irrelevant. Of course if something is done in public(Britney's commando escapades) or in front of other people(Gibson and his anti-semitism) then that's their fault. Photographers camping out and using telephoto lenses to catch pictures through windows of private property, then yeah that's a bit far.

Now, politicians, government officials, real public figures whose activities actually matter are an entirely different animal. It can be tempting to say they deserve their privacy just out of human decency but the number of times the high scrutiny they are under has revealed corruption and incompetence and the times a lack of scrutiny has bit us in the arse, says it is truly in the public interest for them to be under this level of scrutiny, and as members of a democratic government it is their duty to serve the public interest above their own (sure it usually doesn't work out that way).

[Nique]

This is a hard subject becuase, to some degree, we are all affected by what others do, even in private... But not always, and no one wants to have to justify every mistake and every habit to the public.

Is it none of our buisness that the president cheats on his wife (just as a hypothetic situation)? Well, on the surface it may be a personal issue, but what does it say about his ability to lead, to commit to a 'contract' or agreement? Have we breached some inherient human right by allowing the press to bring this to our attention? Or does his status as a public figure and his effect on us imply that he willingly foregoes a certain amount of privacy?

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Nique

This is a hard subject becuase, to some degree, we are all affected by what others do, even in private... But not always, and no one wants to have to justify every mistake and every habit to the public.

Is it none of our buisness that the president cheats on his wife (just as a hypothetic situation)? Well, on the surface it may be a personal issue, but what does it say about his ability to lead, to commit to a 'contract' or agreement? Have we breached some inherient human right by allowing the press to bring this to our attention? Or does his status as a public figure and his effect on us imply that he willingly foregoes a certain amount of privacy?

I agree, the president cheating on his wife does make some statement about his character. Also since most presidents try to paint themselves as family men, it would mean part of his campaign was a farce. However, do you have the right to know what he thinks about Senator So and So by reading his diary? Does the press have the right to install hidden cams all over his house to keep track of what he ate for supper? Even in the cheating situation, are the discussions between him and the first lady anybody else's business?

Actions that affect people around you are one thing. Private actions are something completely different, and the press doesn't really seem to know where the line is.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Nique

what does it say about his ability to lead, to commit to a 'contract' or agreement?

As far as anything to do with Clinton, or presidents in general really, I would submit that much more might be said about his ability to lead by how he actually goes about leading, in his official capacity as President of the United States.

I mean if you want to know about a President's capacity to hold to contracts and agreements, it's entirely possible to find out by, well, looking at his record of holding to actual contracts and agreements, such as he might make in the course of his official duties as President.

Whether or not he gets blowjobs from interns seems as though it would comparatively be a much poorer source of information.

Just throwing that out there.

I had a larger point to make about the overall issue of speech and celebrity privacy that tied into the above rather nicely, buuuuuuut... too lazy. Will try and get to that later.

[Mirai Gen]

Clinton also dates mediums.

On topic: Yeah, one of the problems with the written word is the fact that anyone, anyone, anyone can write them down. If you want your character named "Joe," and he kills God, well, that's what he does. And nobody can stop you. And if it gets put on the mass media, stopping that breaches the freedom of press. So when the press got ahold of the fact that Clinton was cheating on his wife, they remembered that sex sells and shipped that baby up to the front page.

Same thing with OJ Simpson, honestly. If they find out you've got a scandal going, they're going to bombard you to find out more about it. And it gets itchy considering the only thing that can overrule freedom of press is invasion of privacy, and that's been going out the window (at least in America) recently.

There's also the fact that celebrities love being celebrities - they can't really say when you can and can't take pictures of them.

It bugs me, too, because I know exactly who's dating who in the celebrity medium and who needs to lose/gain weight, and I don't even read magazines.

[Nique]

As far as anything to do with Clinton, or presidents in general really, I would submit that much more might be said about his ability to lead by how he actually goes about leading, in his official capacity as President of the United States.

I don't think its alright to merely brush aside marital fidelity as any less of an indicator of charecter, but, yes, it can have nothing to do with other positive aspects of a persons charecter which makes them fit for 'X' position.

My example was only that, and admitedly not a perfect one. The larger point would be, I guess, any personal activity that might have some affect on the person's social life, and whether or not the invasion of privacy is the greater wrong.

[Loyal]

The idea of "Public right to know" disgusts me in context. I cringe whenever I hear the term. While the public would have a right to know if someone's been whittling away their tax dollars for a Ferrari, or increasing his salary illegally, or other things that can actually affect the lives and assets of the public at large, "public right to know" simply doesn't go into that context. It is only used as a (frankly bullshit) excuse for the media to bypass right to privacy.

It's one thing to talk up a storm and spread rumors of how a politician is doing their job poorly, or when a celebrity has gone and completely blown off his major role in a much-hyped movie if only because he knew that movie would sell awesomely regardless, because hey, those are the types of things they're famous for (Or infamous). These activities are not an all-purpose wavier for prying into private life. An affair in the oval office is pushing it enough, but for crap's sake, diaries?

Put briefly: Public right to know = Bull; Celebrity status != Personal life put on a display podium.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Nique

I don't think its alright to merely brush aside marital fidelity as any less of an indicator of charecter, but, yes, it can have nothing to do with other positive aspects of a persons charecter which makes them fit for 'X' position.

My example was only that, and admitedly not a perfect one. The larger point would be, I guess, any personal activity that might have some affect on the person's social life, and whether or not the invasion of privacy is the greater wrong.

If anything we should take the fact that a president is getting blown in the oval office as a sign that he's probably doing his job alright. All our best presidents had mistresses that we found out about after the fact.

For everything else, I'm honestly with Loyal. I could do what I do and just word everything better and stuff... but yanno... why?