Media Issues

One law I would bring in. All photos are the property of the subject and cannot be published without their permission. This is the law in France.
 
Well it was proved that the story that Max Mosley was dressed as a nazi and was acting out a concentration camp scenario was a lie.

That's nothing to do with free speech that is made up bullshit.

I also don't get the fascination with other peoples sex lives. Who cares what anybody does in the confines of their own 4 walls, whether it be a 'celebrity' or not, unless it's illegal.

Let he who is without sin blah blah.
 
intheknow! said:
Tried to post this in another thread but deleted so I will post in it's own thread. This is my opinion and not related to anything recent. Let's have a grown up discussion about free speech and free press issues, relevance is the current inquiry that's going on regarding phone hacking. The media always seems to get a bad rap from all sides.


I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with anyone wanting a Privacy Law! In a democratic free society you NEED a free press and all that entails. Sometimes you can hate what they do but without them it's the ordinary person that suffers.

Privacy Law protects the rich, famous, powerful, elites (overwhelmingly men), free speech and free press laws protects the masses. It's an ancient right of ours and something generations before us have fought and died for we should NEVER give that up. Even in the face of terrible press behaviour I will always support a free press because the alternative is much worse. When the top of society think they can do what they want without fear of the public finding out, we the people suffer.

Some truely shocking, sickening scandals have been uncovered and injustices rectified that would not have been if we had privacy law. Ranging from the sickening institutional abuse of children etc to things like MP's expenses scandal and many other things through the ages. I am not willing to sacrifice the free press so that people like Hugh Grant, Max Mosley and Steve Coogan etc can indulge themselves sometimes in law breaking behaviour without fear of it being exposed.
Click to expand...

theres your first bollock up!!
 
TCIB said:
Simple fix, kick Murdoch in his wrinkly old bollocks and nut any cnut who objects.

Then shut down all the daily rags he owns, or force them to call themselves "entertainment publications" like the onion or national enquirer.

Only give the power to look into stuff to responsible outlets, The Times etc.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
''shut down all the daily rags he owns....''
''only give power...... to responsible outlets, The Times etc''

Please 'google' the names of the newspapers Murdoch owns......
 
the media is not a divine law unto itself. It's an institution which has no right to publish whatever, whenever they decide. We live in such a media driven society, we forget what is the most important part of our autonomy and social being, privacy. Instead, the media has moulded and shaped our society into a bent figure of voyeurism which cannot be controlled. If the media was a human being, he would be in prison for life. For public policy reasons, and for those reasons only, i.e. Tax from newspaper sales, the government wil never impose statutory legislation restricting what journalists can digest and vomit onto our eyes and ears so that leaves us with the judges, whose role it is to independently establish common law on the matter and i would suggest judges are not all independent.

The media, as with law, should be in the publics interest. The interpretation of 'interest' is not what people find 'interesting' but infprmation and news which helps society become aware to events within said society which are important on a public scale rather than individual. Milly Dowlers phone calls in my opinion, are not in the publics interest and neither should anyones private life, as the only person affected is the person in question, hence 'private,' thus, not in the public interest.

The media fail on so many levels it is unbelievable. We are slowly but surely transforming into america.
 
As an American it's always interesting to read about English speech/privacy/libel laws. the laws already seem incredibly strict to us over here. I always think that even though there is plenty of shit published in the news, I would hate to have the press even more hampered. Their ability to publish as freely as possible has stopped injustices many times. In fact, I would argue that the press/public interest is one of the few ways average people have of fighting back against governments.
In the US there is a difference in the law between public and private figures which is designed protect those private figures (new york times v. Sullivan for more info)

denislawsbackheel said:
One law I would bring in. All photos are the property of the subject and cannot be published without their permission. This is the law in France.
Click to expand...

what if a pm or a government higher-up was secretly meeting with some interest group or company president at the same time as pushing for some law to benefit them. Wouldn't you want that story and proof to be publicized?
 
What if a politician is running for election and presents themselves to the voters as a family wo/man who places his/her family at the centre of their universe. The voters decide they like that and vote on that basis and then privacy law prevents anything that would cast doubt on that such affairs etc. from being exposed? Same goes for many celebrities. They'd be happy to use their family to enhance their image and earn more money because of it but then hypocritically issue an injunction whenever they've failed to live up to their image.

As far as I'm concerned, if the media can prove the information was obtained legally and was not knowingly false, print at leisure. Maybe retractions should be better policed and apologies shouldn't be pushed back to page sixteen in very small print. The other solution I could think of would be that anyone who has regular dealings with the press because of the nature of their job would have to sign a declaration on whether they're keeping their private life in or out of public life. If they say out, no wedding pictures, no new baby pictures, no reference to families or family values in election campaigns etc. but correspondingly they can now get an injunction or sue publishers even if it is the truth.
 
TCIB said:
Simple fix, kick Murdoch in his wrinkly old bollocks and nut any cnut who objects.

Then shut down all the daily rags he owns, or force them to call themselves "entertainment publications" like the onion or national enquirer.

Only give the power to look into stuff to responsible outlets, The Times etc.
Click to expand...


You complete tool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.