Is it time that the press stopped whining about gagging orders?

[sp1814]

We all love a bit of gossip, but why is it that certain newspapers (well, mainly the Daily Heil) are getting so worked up over gagging orders?

It is NOT our right to know which footballer is having an affair, or which soap star had an 'away day' in Aiya Napa last month. It seems that certain newspapers are livid, because they're being denied the right to sell more copy.

Is this in the public interest, or is it something that that public is interested in (there's a BIG difference).

Are we a nation gagging to know who is sleeping with whom and when?

http://www.dailymail....stars-shame-ever.html

[Sqad]

Welshy.....naaaah!....I was doctor to the "common people"...........a sort of male "Mother Theresa"

[andy-hughes]

Gromit makes a valid point.

We are indanger of the issue being clouded by the way in which the law is applied.

I have no interest in the private life of a footballer or soap star, i do not regard that information as being in the public interest - which is the point on which the application is important.

If however the same application is being used to suppress the paedophilia of a high Court judge, then that is a different issue.

I am perfectly happy for the 'celebrities' in the world to be abel to avail themselves of privacy, but not the law they exercise is used to shield activities which genuinely do affect the greater society in which we live.

in a nutshell - Mr Crouch, do as you will with any young lady of your choice, but Your Honour, you are going to be helping the police with their enquiries.

[Ellipsis]

Who should be the arbiter of whether something's in the public interest?

For example, you might contribute to a particular charity. The head of the charity might be quite sanctimonious. But they're not in public office and they're not elected to the position. Do you therefore have a right to know if their private standards aren't living up to their public position, simply because it's an organisation that you give money to?

What about the board member of the supermarket where you shop? Do you have a right to know their private lives too, or is it only the position of the supermarket as a whole that should interest you?

I agree that those in the monarchy, church and politics should be held accountable - not to higher standards, necessarily, just accountable.

But when it comes to private life I don't see how footballers are particularly different from many others. You either have a right to know or you don't have a right to know. If a particular football club takes an immoral position, that's one thing. But for one of its players to be acting immorally is quite another.

So the question to all should be, do you think the press (or neighbourhood gossip) has a right to publish YOUR private life?

[Ellipsis]

> If however the same application is being used to suppress the paedophilia of a high Court judge, then that is a different issue.

It is indeed, because it's a legal issue. That's a bit different to a moral/ethical issue...

[andy-hughes]

This is the moral and ethical dilema in which we find ourselves Ellipsis (haven't seen your name before - a warm welcome!)

i would be inclined to hope that the issue of relavence could be handled by the judiciary, in terms of applying the law as and when it is appropriate.

In the instances of 'celebrities' - the law has been applied in order to protect innocent members of the individual's family, and it is difficult to argue with that stance.

I would take the position that the private life of a 'celebrity' is not fair game for the media - it tends only to exascerbate a purient interest in the lives of others simply because of their fame, and therefore they are entitled to leghal protection without any genuine threat to press freedom, only to press circulation.

[jackthehat]

I've not read to much about the protagonists in this particular case but I did catch on the news that the footballer has had this gagging order slapped on the woman; thus preserving 'his' anonymity whilst serving her name up to the press. She was *not*, apparently, going to kiss and tell, but the footballer was concerned that she might.....
She is now effectively silenced from putting across her side of the story whilst, at the same time, being at the mercy of the press.
*That* I believe to be an abuse of the law.

[Ellipsis]

> I would take the position that the private life of a 'celebrity' is not fair game for the media

It's endemic though Andy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip_columnist

"Gossip" says it all. It's gossip on a mass-media scale. Some publications even advertise themselves as providing "the goss".

Arbitrating who is and isn't "fair game" for that gossip is a slippery slope. Our private lives are either all fair game (e.g. for the neighbourhood gossip, the local press or the national press) or none of them are. We can't graduate to becoming fair game just because we cross some income or popularity threshold.

We need to decide whether it's all or nothing. If it's all then we have a situation like the USA - free speech and a free press and almost anything goes. It it's nothing then we need much stonger privacy laws, with huge penalties for breaking them. This would create a "no-win no-fee" marketplace so that anybody could get justice if their privacy was infringed, and would make the press more inclined to self-police.