Media Issues

[intheknow!]

Dont mix up Privacy with reporting untruths. If the press report lies there is already Libel Law which has been in existence for decades and rightly so. If they report and publish lies then they should be sued heavily through the Libel Courts.

Unfortunately for most people libel laws are useless as they depend on the depth of pockets of the claimant rather than the rights and wrongs of the case, it is a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.
People do hae some right to privacy, as in most things it is a matter of balance overprotective laws can protect the wrong doer no protection results in the deeply unpleasant and amoral reporting that passes for journalism in to much of our press today.

That's simply not true. The English courts have the most stringent and easiest to prosecute Libel Law courts in the whole world. Anyone from prince to pauper can use the Libel Law and it's simple if you can prove you've been lied about then you win big. There are many many Law firms that do this on a no win no fee basis because the English courts are so draconian in Libel. In fact people from all over the world sue others for Libel in English courts because no other Country in the world prosecutes Libel as heavily as we do.

When President Obama first came to power one of the first pieces of legislation he signed into Law was a Bill protecting ALL American citizens and publications in the United States from English Libel Court rulings. Meaning that any ruling made in London cannot be enforced in the US. The American Senate has denounced English Libel rulings as having a 'chilling effect on free speech'.

Please research things more before condoning throwing away our ancient rights, because these are our fundamental rights, that as I've said previously, generations before us have fought and died to uphold.

 

[Cityfan]

Please research things more because these are our fundamental rights that as I've said previously, generations before us have fought and died to uphold.

I have had several generations of my forbears have died in wars. It has never been suggested to me by any relative that they did so so that the press can discuss a persons sexual proclivities.

 

[intheknow!]

Please research things more because these are our fundamental rights that as I've said previously, generations before us have fought and died to uphold.

I have had several generations of my forbears have died in wars. It has never been suggested to me by any relative that they did so so that the press can discuss a persons sexual proclivities.

That's just the high profile celeb things though. That's my point. Privacy Law will stop the free press that our society depends on. Not just the celeb stuff but the really important things. Once our rights have gone they won't come back because it's not in the interests of the wealthy, famous, powerful, elites for the rest of us to know what is going on. You only have to look to France for an example. And as I've said we are already a very very unequal society and Privacy Law would make it worse.

 

[Cityfan]

That's just the high profile celeb things though. That's my point. Privacy Law will stop the free press that our society depends on. Not just the celeb stuff but the really important things. Once our rights have gone they won't come back because it's not in the interests of the wealthy, famous, powerful, elites for the rest of us to know what is going on. You only have to look to France for an example. And as I've said we are already a very very unequal society and Privacy Law would make it worse.

I have to say I am unclear how the lack of a privacy law has made our society better or more equal than Frances.
Obviously there has to be balance in any law. This debate seems to be as a result of todays tragic news. I have no knowledge other than rumours. All I would say is this is that if the press were planning a true story regarding coercive sex or sex involving minors I support their right to do so. If they wre planning the usual smut and innuendo about what consenting adults do in private God rot them and people do need protection from the press.

 

[hilts]

Ian Hislop made a good point when he said it was the press that investigated and broke the stories about the MPs expenses and the phone hacking so a free press is quite important as is the police not getting into bed with them, the great british public should also shoulder the blame the buy the crap and watch the crap.

Whenever i see a trailer for what katie did next it does make you wonder

 

[stony]

But why should Celebs who make millions from endorsements because of their fame or sell their family life through magazines etc be free from scrutiny?

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said "media whores deserve all they get"

 

[Aphex]

Your 'pm' was from colin_bell, a southerner, therefore not really a city fan

Agree with the free press thing tho.

 

[bumbleblue]

It is too simplistic to say we have a right to the truth about anybody.. why? Do we all even here on bluemoon know each others "truths"?
I think it is right to say that we have a right to a "free press" the problem or question for me is ..How have we got to a point in our society where there is a demand for salacious stories about anyone and everyone?
We labour on about people beleiving what they read in the papers but the papers dont exist to debate or educate they exist to make profits for shareholders end of. We are to blame allowing our culture to be reduced to salacious gossip mongering and hounding of (often) innocent people, and lowest common denominator appeal across all media from papers to pop.

 

[cleavers]

I've no problem with the "truth" about people who are doing stuff that's genuinely illegal, but they have no right to report stuff about peoples private life that is maybe morally wrong, but perfectly legal.

2 examples, Giggs and his affairs, Rooney and his "paid" help in bed. I use those two examples very deliberately because they titivated many on bluemoon, and we all had a good laugh about it (me included). However they should be between them and their families, and should not be played out in tabloid newspapers, it is of no "public interest" who celeb a or b is shagging, unless of course it is illegal. If it had caused them to consider taking, or take their own life, then its clearly not in the public interest.

I'm sure I'll get shot down for using 2 rags as examples, but it works for everyone, the media have a responsibility, and recent events (and current enquiry) show how f**king low they will go, and this is why some legislation IS required.

I personally won't buy, and rarely read or click on a link to a newspaper, it funds their shit through advertising, and I don't want to help them.

(And this is not even considering their bloody obvious bias in certain subjects (City being one).)

 

[Fame Monster]

there is already Libel Law which has been in existence for decades and rightly so.

should have a 1st Amendment American style free speech Law.

Do you think they are mutually exclusive?