gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Newspapers don't give a second's thought to the public interest and whilst I agree a democracy requires newspapers to function properly, that cannot be a state of affairs that currently subsists in any meaningful way. Our written press, far from the bastion of freedom that it likes to project itself as, is in fact, dysfunctional and should actually be a source of national shame. Your apparent defence of its right to broadly carry on with its current MO, suggests that this is a view you sadly do not share.Rocket-footed kolarov said:gordondaviesmoustache said:'Sub-human scum' is a term of art, not to be taken literally. I don't imagine Alexander Kolarov actually has....errrrr......rocket feet, for example. The same principle applies here.Rocket-footed kolarov said:Nobody is subhuman.
She comes across as a shallow and materialist cow, but then woman attracted to footballers usually are, particularly as she is 25 and he is still in nappies. Not surprising that he took her to Nandos is it?
I thought you were a liberal GDM, the "product" reigns supreme.
Equally I think you have failed to grasp one of the totemic hallmarks of classic liberalism, namely freedom to act as you choose as long as it doesn't directly impact on others in a negative way. Selling a story to a newspaper does not meet that criterion, as much as child abuse doesn't, for reasons which should be apparent even to the most unsophisticated of minds. Freedom can never be completely unfettered if society is to function effectively.
That is too broad to be taken to its whole meaning. The child abuse example is excessive doesn't help your cause. When the courts decide on breach of confidence/ misuse of private information, cases in terms of kiss and tell stories they do a balancing act of her right of freedom of expression, and his right to a private family life. If I was to do a balancing act then her right to tell the Sun about her bad date at Nandos, trumps his right not to be talked about in newspapers, in this incident, it was hardly the most private of information. Although I suspect you were speaking in general terms. This legal consideration pays homage to some ideas of liberalism. Newspapers printing stories about celebrities private lives is in the public interest, because without it there would be less newspapers, and democracy requires newspapers, to function properly.
That doesn't mean I think we should impose legislation on the press , but perhaps if more liberal people were prepared to openly condemn such things as kiss and tell stores, then perhaps we would have a written press that more accurately reflects a modern, thriving democracy, rather than what we are currently pretty much forced to endure, which isn't fit for purpose imo.