Despite the protests of tabloid editors, citizens have a right to privacy. No privacy and Google and Facebook could use your data as they pleased, police officers and prosecutors could force defendants to incriminate themselves and the state could spy on citizens without showing due cause. I doubt even the editor of the Daily Mail would welcome an "open society" quite as open as that.
But because the British are obsessed with and frightened of sex, we have reduced a complex legal debate to one question: who is pleasuring whom? I concede that the answers should generally remain private and that people have a right to keep their affairs to themselves, if and only if, there is no public interest in disclosure.
This seems closer to my position than yours? It now comes down to a discussion of what is in the public interest.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-05-29 07:32 am (UTC)Despite the protests of tabloid editors, citizens have a right to privacy. No privacy and Google and Facebook could use your data as they pleased, police officers and prosecutors could force defendants to incriminate themselves and the state could spy on citizens without showing due cause. I doubt even the editor of the Daily Mail would welcome an "open society" quite as open as that.
But because the British are obsessed with and frightened of sex, we have reduced a complex legal debate to one question: who is pleasuring whom? I concede that the answers should generally remain private and that people have a right to keep their affairs to themselves, if and only if, there is no public interest in disclosure.
This seems closer to my position than yours? It now comes down to a discussion of what is in the public interest.