observer Posted April 21, 2011 Report Share Posted April 21, 2011 Where should the line be drawn between the "right" to privacy and "freedom" of speech? Celebs are now securing injunctions through the HR Act to prevent scandalous information being revealed about them (mainly by the press). Naturally the press and some politicians are complaining that this is curtailing their freedom of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 In my opinion, these celebrities only want their injunctions to allow them to continue with the sort of behaviour that caused them to need an injunction in the first place!! I don't necessarily think they should be hounded by the press, but if they didn't have something to hide they wouldn't have a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 Where should the line be drawn between the "right" to privacy and "freedom" of speech? Celebs are now securing injunctions through the HR Act to prevent scandalous information being revealed about them (mainly by the press). Naturally the press and some politicians are complaining that this is curtailing their freedom of speech. Isn't scandalous behaviour today's definition of being a celebrity What is the problem, it's how some of them earn their living and they presumably get well paid for it:?: I can't understand what the issue is, surely it's the society we have created and continue to feed off, stoked by the press. Have you tried changing your media source OBS or changing your Celebrity life style choice of friends Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 This "it's our right to know" is another modern improvement which fails to improve anything and has turned us into a nation of busybodies with no respect for anything or anyone. It caters for the lowest common denominator in us all. The queen; politicians; heroes of our younger days, are all savagely attacked by the press and indirectly by you and I. Not one of us is lily-white. What individuals do in their private lives is up to them - certainly people having affairs is hardly something new. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 The press use the term "public interest", when basically the interest is in juicy gossip - it's of no consequence to the rest of us if some overpaid footballer spends his spare time in brothels - we simply don't need to know - therefore he should expect privacy from media intrusion. However, if someone in public office is engaged in corrupt activity, it would appear we do need to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 Think there is corruption and corruption. We are all corrupt to a degree. The problem with gossip is that we(general public) do want to know - hence the sale of non newspapers. Told the tale before that when I was a policeman we could bob into the wholesalers and get a free sunday newspaper. The man in charge said that nearly every policeman came in and said "news of the world - wouldn't be seen dead reading that". But the boss said "that was the pile which always went down". Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 Geoff. Disappointed in your comment, or was it because observer started the thread? It is wrong that these stars can't keep their trousers zipped up when they are the idols of millions of kids and should be setting an example, instead of betraying their family, spitting and swearing and behaving in a loutish manner. Never mind that it is how it is today. IF they aren't happy playing "Happy Families" then get a divorce. Whilst I agree about privacy being behind closed doors in the home, these football players and others who play around, should be named and shamed. Think of the upset in the lives of the footballers wives wondering if it is their husband being unfaithful. As a Man.U supporter, Rooney has gone way down in my estimation. Terry should never have got back in the team, never mind being made captain. Rumour has it that another famous scouser got an injunction last year, and people worship the ground he walks on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted April 22, 2011 Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 Phone hacking is a big no-no, that should be an interesting case. secret recording through a window into a private home is also wrong. Snorting coke and being photographed doing it in a public place (same with non illegal activities, such as snogging a mistress, etc) should be down to the disgression of the editor. You have a choice of becoming a celebrity, if you dont like it, dont do it. I would rather be a nobody on a resonable wage than a multi milionaire celebrity, simply because the mither would ruin my life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2011 SO - a case for privacy: I'm frankly not interested in the extra-marital activities of a footballer, providing he performs on the pitch. IF the morality police didn't know about these so called scandals, they'd have nothing to get high and mighty about, nor would kids who, for some strange reason, see these celebs as role models, have anything bad to ape - cos they simply wouldn't know about it. And hopefully, the tabloids might go out of buisiness, cos they had nothing sordid to tell the rubber necks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 obs wrote I'm frankly not interested in the extra-marital activities of a footballer, providing he performs on the pitch. You may wish to rephrase that one. Personally I have no interest whatsoever in who is doing what to whom and where as long as it does not affect me personally or members of my immediate family. If newspapers did not have this kind of sensationalism just think of how many trees would be saved. your average paper would consist of about ten pages. three of sport, three of telly, two of puzzles and the rest adverts for those things that we cannot live without like garlic peeler's and touch free hand washing systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 nice one Sid, the thought struck me as I typed - but I couldn't be bovvered re-phrasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 But we are where we are, so the answers should be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 Where we are is - that Judges are (rightly in this instance imo), upholding privacy injunctions by celebs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Posted April 23, 2011 Report Share Posted April 23, 2011 A very long time ago Jackie O was chased by one paparazzi so much she go an injunction against him. I believe he had to stay some many hundred feet from her - so he paid others to get the close ups. Unfortunately if the public didn't want to know so badly - there would be no reason for all the fallderawl. Personally I could care less - but I know plenty that live and breath other peoples business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted April 24, 2011 Report Share Posted April 24, 2011 Has this "in the public interest or the public want to know ever been proven? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2011 Unfortunately, some folk lead such sad and pathetic lives themselves, that they have to voyeristically live through the escapades of celebs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2011 Seems Parliamentary privilege, the social network and it's global nature have driven a horse and cart through any notion of preserving one's privacy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Shouldn't have been naughty boys then should they. I think its hilarious that everyone who wants to know who the culprits are already know yet the Law still deems it wrong to mention their names. If you can type the words suing twitter into google its there. Paying for privacy is just another perk of privelege and good on the interweb for mocking this. Certain poster(s) are very conspicuous by their absence on this issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 I'm not 'absent' I'm just not interested in celebs or their injunctions and I have no interest in knowing who they are or what they have or haven't been upto in their private life (or work life for that matter) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 I'm not 'absent' I'm just not interested in celebs or their injunctions and I have no interest in knowing who they are or what they have or haven't been upto in their private life (or work life for that matter) bet you've had a quick look though Dizzy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 nope and I've not read, listened to or watched anything about whatever/whoever it is you are all talking about either... I may do later on though just so I don't feel left out and ignorant to the topic being discussed on here (purely forum research of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 Havn't got a shred of interest in who a banker (who we can't name) is sharing a bed with; what I would be interested in, is justice catching up with him over his alleged antics with our money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 free speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 gossip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted May 21, 2011 Report Share Posted May 21, 2011 if its gossip why have an injunction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.