More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,570
Like?
Re: Has there ever...
In reply to mike703, 5 months ago

mike703 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Most kids would be overjoyed to have their photo printed in a newspaper or magazine.

So? Many kids would be overjoyed to be given a lift home by a nice stranger in a nice car. Doesn't make it a good idea.

But that is not the point here. Whether 'child protection' was or was not the motivation behind the court's decision - it was just one possibility that was speculated about above - the fact remains that the court found that the newspaper had acted unreasonably to the extent that damages were awarded against them. The judge ruled 'There was no relevant debate of public interest to which the publication of the photographs contributed. The balance of the general interest of having a vigorous and flourishing newspaper industry does not outweigh the interests of the children in this case.'

If you disagree, please let us know why the right of someone carrying a camera to follow kids around and repeatedly photograph them - despite being explicitly asked to stop by the parents - and then to publish the photos in a national newspaper, with their names included - is so essential to the fabric of society that it trumps the right of a family just to go for a walk without being harassed.

As I said in my post above, I am more than a little disappointed that so many feel photos of children in a newspaper represents so much danger.

Count me as an "unreasonable human being", then.

OK.

Then again, I do make a decent side income selling drugs to elementary school kids dressed as a nun, so I'm probably a bit worse than others.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Ah!New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow