"I am Spartacus"

[fpb]

Right. This is a bit late, now that Wikipedia is in on the act, but I still want to do it:

Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United football star, committed adultery with Imogen Thomas and then tried to forbid anyone from hearing about it by the use of a "super-injunction" - one of the corrupt British judiciary's worst outrages against freedom of speech. Now sue me, you spoilt, overindulged, cowardly little bully.

Comments

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

I am certainly arguing from a different premise. I would perhaps accept your argument if the story read - Ryan Giggs committed adultery with Imogen Thomas and stopped there and that one party to the adultery was not being paid for their dalliance.

Anything else is surplus to requirements and I do not think the journalists can claim that they have no responsibility for the impact of their story on the innocents involved.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You want to be careful of this kind of traps. By making an issue of the behaviour of tabloids, you are handing the scum-on-top a free pass to do what they like and muzzle their critics. The tabloids are part of the landscape in this country: if you start (like the judges do) from the premise that their vulgarity and pruriency makes them unworthy of protection, you have as good as allowed the Giggses of this world to do what they like. They can always claim that their families need protection from the nasty tabloids. Look at France to see what that gets you.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

However, they do exist and their behaviour is an issue. I say again, my concern is not for the 'scum-on-top' but for their kids who are innocent of any crime but who suffer. Change the bahavious of the tabloids and the need for protection is not justified in any ay. You can claim that they have a right to know certain information, but they then have a responsibility not to abuse that information.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

In my view rights should almost always come with responsibilities and that is true in this case.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Your argument seems to be that rights cease to exist if they are used irresponsibly.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

I'd put it very differently, I'd say tht we have to recognise that sometimes rights are in opposition. It isn't possible to have complete freedom of speach and a complete right to privicy. The two are incompatable.

The reason for this fudge in the Uk is that we try to have both, in the USA freedom of seach is protected under the constitution. In Ireland the right to privacy is enshrined in the constitution. In the UK we try to find a balance and use 'Public Interest' as the fulcrum.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I did not realize that Ireland had such a bad a law. But it is to be expected in a country which was long, whatever it is now, cradled in the worst kind of clericalism, with the inevitable corollary that the image of the Church and of "good" Catholics, whatever the reality, must be shielded. I find it strange that you should find it acceptable.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

I don't. I think the struggle to find a balance between two competing rights is probably the best position to take.

And that is the Republc of Ireland, not Northern Ireland - just to be quite clear.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Exactly. What "Church" and good Catholics in inverted commas did you think I was talking about?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

To repeat myself (for the third time): the children wouldn't suffer if their father had seen fit to keep his genitalia to himself. Once he has done otherwise, thanks to old man Murphy's law, sooner or later the matter will get around to his children. It makes no difference if it is tabloids, "candid friends" or surprise discoveries in old drawers; the pain is the same. And anyone who thinks they can do the one and not cause the other is also guilty of wishful thinking - a fool as well as a knave; and stupidity is the one sin that God punishes, and punishes always, right here on earth.

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Sort of a branch-off from a similar convo on FB, so I can comment to both of you over here.

If most of the celebs behaving badly would own up to their behavior, the whole shitstorm would die a lonely death after a few weeks. David Letterman is a perfect example of this. When it came to light that he'd had affairs with his employees, he made a public acknowledgement and apology on his show one night and admitted he had a lot of amends to make. His TV ratings actually went up after that, and within a couple of weeks the whole thing was a non-issue because it was out in the open.

Compare that to Bill Clinton, who went on "lyin' and denyin'" when it was pretty obvious that the story was more than rumors. The press and the public were out for blood after that.

Yes, there are sleazy journalists, but I feel the main responsibility lies with the person who did the deed and how they handle the consequences.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

That is very, very true. There is very little I like about Max Mosley, including the outrageous damages he got from The Sun (not to mention the joke that indulging his sex games in German and in prison uniform had NUFFINK to do, M'Lud, with his family's history) , but his immediate admission that yes, this was was what floated his boat, was the only way to go.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

...and bear in mind that Letterman behaved a lot worse than Giggs. His abuse of employees was systematic and backed by his position as boss, with the implied consequences. But he played the system well, as one would expect a smart old media whore/fox like him to.