Publish and be damned to go ? (50)

If we're talking about true statement (ie not libels) then it comes down to privacy type laws. If something is not confidential (XYZ politician is led down a street in a collar by his mistress every Friday night on Brighton pier - I made that one up) then it can be published. XYZ footballer or golfer had it off with various other women or Irish married female politican over 60 had sex with 19 year old lover without getting them to sign non disclosure agreements and then the lover kisses and tells then it's fair game.

Third party records without permission on private premises consensual lawful acts (Max M case) then it's unlawful. Not in the public interest to publish notwithstanding the public are always interested in sex lives of others. Whereas family values politician who has publicly taken a stance of don't commit adultery caught with his trousers down - fair game.

You don't need to decisively detect anything - the default position is that people can say whatever (as a corp or individual). Any gagging would have to be implemented as an additional law that *is* specific and testable. Guess what we already do this in some forms and it works; Something like a (hypothetical) law;

An entity (and by proxy its employees) operating as a health care service shall not express the confidential details of it clients except within its own organisation

What you are arguing is that this rule would violate *your* rights to hear about Joe Muggins' genital warts. That's patently silly. What I'm saying is that this *doesn't* violate anyone rights because doctors only come into contact with this data as a result of their employment contract, and because their employer is a legal body, it doesn't violate article 19.

How about;

A charity that is created to collect money solely to rescue battered kittens, can't project its views on non-kitten related topics

which would seem quite a reasonable thing to me - do you think that is a violation of the rights of kitten charities world wide, or your right to hear the opinion of kitten charities on nuclear disarmament?

Car makers can't provide their own crash test results, only the official ones

consumer protection...

Don't put adverts for junk food in the middle of kids TV programs

Go MacDonalds...

Yes, thats right - like the various individuals who receive large wads of cash from Oil Co. to say that nothing bad is happening to the world. Or the doctors in the sixties who were bankrolled to claim that cigarettes were good for you. I don't believe individuals in these situations should enjoy 'free speech protection' in law.

So there might be unfortunate corner cases, where an individual may want to voice their opinion on something, but were entangled in that topic on a professional basis. Quite frankly I don't have that much sympathy - its called a 'conflict of interest'. And they would have known that this restriction before they received money from them.

A university is a charity. I can't see government getting a law that restricted the freedom of expression of univerities through parliament without a revolution. The same goes for political parties etc. You might easily well say the government could ban anything (which may be true, but hopefully democratic process prevents it).

I don't know how that stuff works - never done it. But individuals aren't guaranteed 'free stuff' by article 19 either, if the government decided to gag google and managed to get that law through commons, bloggers would have to pay google. That's OK - I also have to buy a stamp to send stuff through the post, and pay virgin for my internet.

All I'm saying is that corps aren't protected by article 19, not that the government should/could/would introduce laws to do that in some kind of blanket fashion. The internet is free (libre), I can pay someone to host my content and the government can't stop me, that doesn't change. I think the press are one of the cases where its justifiable (in the public interest etc etc).

Here's another little media case - I believe that marketing spend, by political parties is capped in various ways - how did Tony Blair's love affair with The Sun in the 90s not massively conflict with that basic principal?

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Edited 27 Feb 10, 1:59 PM by Attitude_Adjuster

Any tightening of privacy laws may inhibit the freedom of the press but if there wasn't a law to protect Max Moseley's right not to have his sexual exploits broadcast to the world there should have been.

Freedom to report about anyone's activities should not extend to their private sexual exploits, no matter who they are.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/m...

Very embarrassed to admit I got almost all the way through this thread before I realised...

... the boy must be taught to feel the lash that falls and the curb that galls and the sting of the rowelled steel...

There was a Notts policeman who wrote a popular blog about his work and he failed in his court application to stop the Times identifying him because his identity could be discovered by people who read his postings. Therefore even if you anonymously post if you say you've got X children, live Y, are nationwide Morris dancing champion or whatever it is - if the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of what you post identify you that is not confidential information. That makes sense. You've been the architect of your own misfortune. Man in tiny village disclosed he lives in that village and secondly that he has a tattoo. No one else in that village has a tattoo therefore he's outed himself. I still think there should be a moral reluctance of others then to out him even more but legally it wouldn't be wrong.

Free speech IS consumer protection, but against the Government, the thing that provides us with rather a lot of services (and rather a lot of pain besides). Perhaps you don't realise it, but when you say the Government should be able to restrict who and how people are allowed to advocate for a belief (even if its a stupid one like that tobacco is perfectly safe), you setup a monopoly on legitimate speech, and that is exactly what a right to freedom of speech is meant to avoid.

Incidentally, most of your other examples could be perfectly dealt with through contract law. Companies, for example, in receipt of your medical records could agree to disclose them in only specified circumstances. That a is a little different since there a company is taking on a specific and consensual obligation to maintain privacy, rather than being gagged by a Government from the off.

On another point, advertising has nowhere near the effects that they are widely assumed to, check from p117 of this lovely little pamphlet: http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book429pdf?.pdf

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

I think the crux of the difference between your and mine perspective, is really where we see the threats to liberty coming from. You stress that a government could subvert 'corporate gagging' to its own end - and I guess it could (though it can do a whole load of other evil stuff too if the populace isn't watching). I see corporations as a slightly bigger threat in today's world, being unbounded by national borders, and hence law, and able thus able to blackmail governments and 'spin' and manipulate the public via the media to a huge extent - not in the 'advertising format' necessarily.

The government does of course already 'gag' both individuals and commerce in various different ways... and its curious that no one seems to make a point of it...

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

If Martin Salter was a discovered to have a stash of bondage-porn, do you not think that merits publication?

(in general I agree!)

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Well I am not hoping to gain perfect institutions, I am just trying to hold back attacks on the current ones. Although, I think I am in the only one in this thread to say that we might be able to do without (in principle) any restrictions on speech whatsoever and just rely on laws against contract breaches and fraud.

Why do you think corporations are so powerful right now? They can't break down your door unless the Government tells them to. They don't invade countries, they don't murder people in the streets of London and get away with it, they can't detain you and they can't imprison. It seems to me that the animating force for the actual bad stuff happening are Governments with corporations (and individuals) happy to get in on the act. And, of course, it is governments which actually grant artificial legal exemptions to corporations (by giving them limited liability for example).

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

Looks like he's going anyway: http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2044707_mp_ma...

But in principle, still no. I think the right to a private sex life should be for everyone in the same way as a right to free speech, regardless.

Maybe if it involves breaking the law it's a little different as it's the crime being reported (albeit salaciously), not just the fact the sexual activity took place. (eg. George Michael can do what he likes in the privacy of his home, when he takes it to a public toilet it's in the public domain, Boy George can play bondage games in privacy, when he goes to prison for chaining up unwilling escort guys it's in the public domain).