Animals & Nature1 min ago
Avram Grant and Privacy Law
Avram Grant has been caught visiting a brothel near to his club's ground. This was reported in a newspaper last year as "Unnamed Premiership Manager visits brothel". The newspaper blamed “creeping privacy laws” for preventing it from publishing further details. It followed a number of cases in which wealthy and famous individuals had successfully gagged the media.
1. Mr Grant has not committed an offense, should it be reported?
2. Should Mr Grant be able to invoke the law to keep his name out of the paper?
1. Mr Grant has not committed an offense, should it be reported?
2. Should Mr Grant be able to invoke the law to keep his name out of the paper?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.1. No. It shouldn't because it shouldn't be of general interest to the readership.Unfortunately it is.
2. No. In spite of the fact that it's not a crime, the newspapers should not be banned from reporting it.He can't sue them for libel if it's true. Celebrities who misbehave have no more right to secrecy about it than anybody else has,certainly when the misbehaviour is outside the confines of their home. But using long lenses to take photos of activity in their own bedrooms deserves to be forbidden!
2. No. In spite of the fact that it's not a crime, the newspapers should not be banned from reporting it.He can't sue them for libel if it's true. Celebrities who misbehave have no more right to secrecy about it than anybody else has,certainly when the misbehaviour is outside the confines of their home. But using long lenses to take photos of activity in their own bedrooms deserves to be forbidden!
1. No.
2. Yes. There's a difference between the public being interested in something, and something being in the public interest.
If he was some kind of political or religious leader who spent his time telling other people how to live their lives there might be a case for exposing his hypocrisy, but he isn't.
2. Yes. There's a difference between the public being interested in something, and something being in the public interest.
If he was some kind of political or religious leader who spent his time telling other people how to live their lives there might be a case for exposing his hypocrisy, but he isn't.
-- answer removed --
We could hardly complain if we commited adultery and the other party sold the story to the press, or if we drove too fast and it made headlines.The only difference is the press wouldn't be interested unless we happened to be a film star or premiership footballer or the like.Why are the press interested? Because we are assumed, correctly, to be interested in gossip whether it's about Mrs Bloggs next door or John Terry or Katie Price. The stars have the advantage. They can sue for libel if the story is untrue whereas Mrs Bloggs can't but, more than that, they get a good living from the public interest in everything else they do, even how they dress,and from selling ghosted 'autobiographies'.They can't it have both ways.If they take from the public with one hand, to their own profit they can't stop the public learning , to their own loss, with the other.
Only if we are to give the Mrs Bloggs of this world the same rights to privacy and access to the courts that stars seek should we recast the law. If we do it should grant very limited rights to privacy, broadly protecting citizens from interception of mail and intrusion into their homes.
Only if we are to give the Mrs Bloggs of this world the same rights to privacy and access to the courts that stars seek should we recast the law. If we do it should grant very limited rights to privacy, broadly protecting citizens from interception of mail and intrusion into their homes.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.