Post by fusilier23 on Feb 21, 2006 11:07:30 GMT
Hmmmm, as I recall we've already been through this debate when a certain other singer gave a guest "lecture" at Oxford and talked about laws that would grant protection to those younger than 18, which would have passed the laugh test if this artist hadn't already given some interviews openly and frankly describing some things that belonged behind closed doors, so I'll say something like what I said then.
Speaking as a lawyer, I can tell you right now that any kind of blanket law against this kind of thing in the U.S. would most likely be dead in the water. The First Amendment is pretty clear that Congress and the states can't pass any law that interferes with freedom of the press, although that freedom, like most freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, is NOT absolute. Reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner can be applied, but they must be fairly narrowly constructed and deal with a compelling state interest, or they will be defeated on appeal.
The fact of the matter is that the government really does not have a compelling interest in protecting the privacy of those who choose to enter the entertainment field, that's what civil actions are for. If someone slanders you or libels you you take them to court and seek money damages, if someone has something that might be embarassing you try to get an injunction and prevent them from publishing it. But I have to say, right-wing conservative though I may be, I am very reluctant to put restraints on the press, unless matters of national or local security are involved. I think we can all agree that troop movements, intelligence operations, what naval vessels are sailing where and in what condition, jail floor plans, and similar matters should be off-limits, and leaking and publishing things like that should be a criminal offense.
Beyond that, though, is there really a compelling state interest in protecting the privacy of celebrities? I just don't see it. I can't speak to what the standards are in Britain, as Britain does not have a written constitution and I do not know what the laws governing the papers there say. But they appear to be pretty liberal, considering some of the raucous stuff we've seen. Still, a free press is one of the factors in keeping governments and businesses reasonably honest and the public reasonably well-informed. A press that only printed press releases would not be worth much, and I am not willing to take a step in that direction that does not need to be taken.
The fact is this, if someone curries public attention to boost a career and make material gain from that attention, then that person is a public figure, and as such they are going to draw attention. So long as they are walking or lying or whatever on the public street, in the public park, or wherever, they are fair game for photographers. They are also fair game in public places for reporters to approach them. Whether they deign to speak or not is another matter altogether.
Like it or not, they are also not able to control the actions of their friends, though they may be able to control the actions of staff through non-disclosure agreements. Still, the papers are within their rights to offer money for anyone who delivers them a picture or a juicy tidbit of gossip regarding this or that star, and from the looks of some of these tabloids, the more salacious the better. How much credence or weight the readers choose to give a salacious story that was bought is up to them, unfortunately, a lot of folks choose to give these things more weight than they are due.
Unfortunately, celebrities can't have it both ways, and have the media gush for them when they want the coverage and keep their distance when they want their privacy, they work for themselves, not any celebrity.
Mind you, I am not excusing a lot of what's going on here. The press and the tabloids are hounding and pestering someone who's done nothing wrong, and possibly making things difficult for her family and loved ones, mostly in the name of feeding not a desire to be informed, but a desire to pry and get salacious details. But until we can cure that problem with people, namely the desire to pry into the lives of the successful, there will always be tabloids, who may be guilty of bad judgment and perhaps bad taste, but not criminal wrongdoing. Truth be told, I'd worry more about going after the press when they keep focussing on stories that have very little value in order to drum up bad ratings for a politician they do not like (cf. releasing Abu Ghraib pics they've had for months to reopen that issue now, still beating the dead horse of the Valerie Plame affair long after it became a non-issue, or dredging up an old drunk-driving conviction or Iran-Contra right before the 2000 and 1992 elections in a bid to break a candidate's momentum) or running with a story that they haven't verified to be true for the same reason (cf. Dan Rather's attempt to smear the current President based on forged documents regarding his National Guard service), or releasing classified information that no one has any business releasing (cf the New York Times and the wiretap story). Even more I'd concern myself with the double standards the press seems to apply even when dealing with itself, it's on the record that Dan Rather in one broadcast said that John Kerry's military service didn't matter because Viet Nam was as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns, but shortly thereafter said that George W. Bush's service in the same war was suddenly VERY relevant.
Speaking as a lawyer, I can tell you right now that any kind of blanket law against this kind of thing in the U.S. would most likely be dead in the water. The First Amendment is pretty clear that Congress and the states can't pass any law that interferes with freedom of the press, although that freedom, like most freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, is NOT absolute. Reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner can be applied, but they must be fairly narrowly constructed and deal with a compelling state interest, or they will be defeated on appeal.
The fact of the matter is that the government really does not have a compelling interest in protecting the privacy of those who choose to enter the entertainment field, that's what civil actions are for. If someone slanders you or libels you you take them to court and seek money damages, if someone has something that might be embarassing you try to get an injunction and prevent them from publishing it. But I have to say, right-wing conservative though I may be, I am very reluctant to put restraints on the press, unless matters of national or local security are involved. I think we can all agree that troop movements, intelligence operations, what naval vessels are sailing where and in what condition, jail floor plans, and similar matters should be off-limits, and leaking and publishing things like that should be a criminal offense.
Beyond that, though, is there really a compelling state interest in protecting the privacy of celebrities? I just don't see it. I can't speak to what the standards are in Britain, as Britain does not have a written constitution and I do not know what the laws governing the papers there say. But they appear to be pretty liberal, considering some of the raucous stuff we've seen. Still, a free press is one of the factors in keeping governments and businesses reasonably honest and the public reasonably well-informed. A press that only printed press releases would not be worth much, and I am not willing to take a step in that direction that does not need to be taken.
The fact is this, if someone curries public attention to boost a career and make material gain from that attention, then that person is a public figure, and as such they are going to draw attention. So long as they are walking or lying or whatever on the public street, in the public park, or wherever, they are fair game for photographers. They are also fair game in public places for reporters to approach them. Whether they deign to speak or not is another matter altogether.
Like it or not, they are also not able to control the actions of their friends, though they may be able to control the actions of staff through non-disclosure agreements. Still, the papers are within their rights to offer money for anyone who delivers them a picture or a juicy tidbit of gossip regarding this or that star, and from the looks of some of these tabloids, the more salacious the better. How much credence or weight the readers choose to give a salacious story that was bought is up to them, unfortunately, a lot of folks choose to give these things more weight than they are due.
Unfortunately, celebrities can't have it both ways, and have the media gush for them when they want the coverage and keep their distance when they want their privacy, they work for themselves, not any celebrity.
Mind you, I am not excusing a lot of what's going on here. The press and the tabloids are hounding and pestering someone who's done nothing wrong, and possibly making things difficult for her family and loved ones, mostly in the name of feeding not a desire to be informed, but a desire to pry and get salacious details. But until we can cure that problem with people, namely the desire to pry into the lives of the successful, there will always be tabloids, who may be guilty of bad judgment and perhaps bad taste, but not criminal wrongdoing. Truth be told, I'd worry more about going after the press when they keep focussing on stories that have very little value in order to drum up bad ratings for a politician they do not like (cf. releasing Abu Ghraib pics they've had for months to reopen that issue now, still beating the dead horse of the Valerie Plame affair long after it became a non-issue, or dredging up an old drunk-driving conviction or Iran-Contra right before the 2000 and 1992 elections in a bid to break a candidate's momentum) or running with a story that they haven't verified to be true for the same reason (cf. Dan Rather's attempt to smear the current President based on forged documents regarding his National Guard service), or releasing classified information that no one has any business releasing (cf the New York Times and the wiretap story). Even more I'd concern myself with the double standards the press seems to apply even when dealing with itself, it's on the record that Dan Rather in one broadcast said that John Kerry's military service didn't matter because Viet Nam was as distant as the Napoleonic campaigns, but shortly thereafter said that George W. Bush's service in the same war was suddenly VERY relevant.
