More privacy restrictions or fair decision?

Started Apr 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
darklamp Senior Member • Posts: 3,567
It's child protection not censorship

Photographing a celebrity in public and using their photos is well established as being very broadly fine.

But the issue here is the kids. Courts will bend over backwards to protect a child's privacy. The accident of one or more parent being a celebrity is hardly justification for using the kids to sell newspapers.

Let's remember also that children of celebrities may be targeted by the same fruit cakes who target celebrities out of obsession or resentment. I do think that the children should be afforded protection from the media's unlimited greed.

And let's also remember there is currently a trial of editors and senior managers of a UK newspaper for allegedly (cough) authorizing extensive illegal hacking of phones in their thirst for headline. And that one allegation includes the hacking of the phone of a child who was murdered, including the deletion of messages by the people hacking the phone.

Yes, I think the media and journalists do need to watched like hawks and limited in what they can do.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow