More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
Like?
Ah!
In reply to Sante Patate, 8 months ago

Sante Patate wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Sante Patate wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

You don't have to want to practice a religion to have the right to freedom of religion, or have anything important to say to have the right to free speech.

Privacy is a right. You don't have rights because otherwise something bad will happen, and you don't have to have - let alone give - any particular reason for demanding that your rights are respected.

If you read the court's decision (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/1163.html) you will see that child protection was never raised as an issue.

So you are saying that the photos of the kids in a public space were a violation of their right to privacy? Or were they not in a public space?

I and the court are saying that publication of the photographs was a violation of their privacy. As the court said, there is a world of difference between being seen, or photographed, walking down the street and having photographs of you walking down the street published. There is simply no reason whatever to assume that taking photographs and publishing them are the same from a privacy point of view.

Interesting distinction.  So, unless a scene is "news worthy", one cannot publish photos of people without their consent?  Is that because money is made, if even indirectly, off of the photo?

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