privacy

[Rudy Tamasz]

The world is becoming more and more tolerant towards whatever outlandish kinds of behavior, which are called 'alternative lifestyles' these days. At the same time the privacy of behaving the way that one choses for him/herself is being is being disrespected and violated every now and then. Look at the verdict that grants that yellow piece of, well, paper the right to go ahead and publish Max Mosley video:

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,189...403160,00.html
"I have, with some reluctance, come to the conclusion that although this material is intrusive and demeaning, and despite the fact that there is no legitimate public interest in its further publication, the granting of an order against this respondent at the present juncture would merely be a futile gesture."

So they effectively intruded private life of a citizen, which is a crime, and got away with it. Isn't it strange? It ****ing is, and I'm angry.

[Daniel]

I'm sorry but there are limits to privacy. If I go on a killing spree and kill 10 people do I deserve privacy? No. If someone has a child with 3 legs. Do they deserve privacy? Yes. If someone is caught in a compromising position witha few prostitutes in a Nazi death camp style S&M party then do they deserve privacy especially when they're in a position that should command some respect? Not IMHO.

Max chose to do what he did and Max chose to be enough of an imbecile to take on Rupert.

He's just reaping what he sowed IMHO.

P.S if Max was just an average Joe on the street and they did this I'd agree with you. But Max is meant to be a respectable public figure. How can someone respect Max when he does this sort of thing?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Ethics and law are two different things. Ethical requirements are different to the president of an international association and a Joe Average but they are equal before the law. Everything that is going on in the bedroom between the consenting adults within the limits of law is legal and private. No public exposure please. Period.

I would understand making it public if Max denied Holocaust, but it was exactly the opposite, excuse my weird irony.

[leopard]

This is general condition might help determining someone deserves privacy or not.

We can simply say not against any profession or activity disadvantaging others like killer, raper, theft etc. Get drunk from which road accident or any violence may occur can be categorized also here.

We might also consider the risk of publishing someone's mistake in case it may trouble him seriously beside it was not a crime that can endanger others directly, while also there are thousands of people have dependency for their life on him would mean we kill them all in one shot.

This could be a mistake but those publish others' personal disgrace is an apparent mistake, imo

[Drew]

I don't want to see a video of a 67 year old (ex?) fascist in an orgy! :

[ShiftingGears]

I'm sorry but there are limits to privacy. If I go on a killing spree and kill 10 people do I deserve privacy? No. If someone has a child with 3 legs. Do they deserve privacy? Yes. If someone is caught in a compromising position witha few prostitutes in a Nazi death camp style S&M party then do they deserve privacy especially when they're in a position that should command some respect? Not IMHO.

Max chose to do what he did and Max chose to be enough of an imbecile to take on Rupert.

He's just reaping what he sowed IMHO.

P.S if Max was just an average Joe on the street and they did this I'd agree with you. But Max is meant to be a respectable public figure. How can someone respect Max when he does this sort of thing?

I was quite appalled that the court allowed News of The World to keep showing that video, with the consensus being "people have seen it anyway, so why not keep it up"? Essentially saying it is OK to continue invading someones privacy once it has been invaded. Pathetic.

[BDunnell]

The world is becoming more and more tolerant towards whatever outlandish kinds of behavior, which are called 'alternative lifestyles' these days.

Which other examples of these 'alternative lifestyles' would you cite, then?

Personally, I am far happier living in a time when we are more tolerant of those who do not follow perceived social norms, whatever they are (maybe you might care to let me know what you consider acceptable in this regard), because this has brought tremendous benefits in terms of equality for women, gay people, people of different ethnic origin, etc. I also find it ironic that so many people who moan about the attacks on personal freedoms from a right-wing perspective are so easily prepared to deny others their freedoms when they don't subscribe to their way of behaving.

As regards the issue of privacy, I again ask - where do you draw the line? There is a lot of excellent investigative journalism that has uncovered things that are worth knowing about, and which may be threatened by tougher laws against the freedom of the press. In addition, there are instances where sex scandal stories are justified, in my view, because they unmask a prominent figure as a hypocrite. In another thread, I highlighted the case of the British right-wing newspaper columnist Paul Johnson, who used to go on and on about how he felt Britain had gone into irreversible moral decline. Then he was exposed as someone who greatly enjoyed being spanked by his mistress. I thought this was perfectly justified. None of this applies to Max Mosley, although it can at a pinch, given the rather high moral tone of some of his pronouncements. I have found this story funny rather than shocking.

I do not wish to defend the tabloids too much, though. Many of their practices are unacceptable and their journalists are often hardly bastions of moral fortitude.

[Rudy Tamasz]

First of all, let me reiterate once again the difference between law and ethics. I am speaking here mostly about law. When it comes to sexual behavior the line between what should and should not be publisized and probably punished is based on three indicators. The first two are age and consent. Those taking part in the action should be adults and should be willing to do what they do. The third indicator is whether this kind of behavior violates other norms of law. E.g. torture is a crime in general so it is unacceptable in sex no matter what. I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong. For instance I would defer to anybody else whether spanking somebody's a$$ in bed is torture.

Ethics is different. First of all everybody's got his/her own code of ethics and what is morally acceptable for me as a Christian may not be acceptable for a non-Christian and vice versa. I may condemn something from the morla point of view, but I will still tolerate it and feel no need to make it public.

[BDunnell]

First of all, let me reiterate once again the difference between law and ethics. I am speaking here mostly about law. When it comes to sexual behavior the line between what should and should not be publisized and probably punished is based on three indicators. The first two are age and consent. Those taking part in the action should be adults and should be willing to do what they do. The third indicator is whether this kind of behavior violates other norms of law. E.g. torture is a crime in general so it is unacceptable in sex no matter what. I am not a lawyer, so I may be wrong. For instance I would defer to anybody else whether spanking somebody's a$$ in bed is torture.

Ethics is different. First of all everybody's got his/her own code of ethics and what is morally acceptable for me as a Christian may not be acceptable for a non-Christian and vice versa. I may condemn something from the morla point of view, but I will still tolerate it and feel no need to make it public.

I find nothing to disagree with there.

[SOD]

Rudy,

Welcome to a world of the so-called free-press and tabloid journalism. it might be different than the pravda you were used to.

you are very welcome.