Press Freedom and Injunctions

Why waste a few good tweets when I can so easily turn them into a blogpost...!

Twitter is interesting. In that, it seems to be journalists who are so insistent that everything is fair game for newspapers. A 'free press' is a classic test of whether society is free. But almost no rights are absolute, and any right is naturally curtailed by the extent that it restricts another right.

The Media, especially the mainstream and tabloid Press make a lot of money by intruding into people's privacy and family life. Those are also rights, laid down in the Human Rights Act which was based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

And people sheeplike following them thinking they're jumping on the latest 'civil liberty' bandwagon. They are in fact defending the right of the rich and powerful unaccountable newspaper industry to trample on the rights of individuals. Individuals who may be exceptionally wealthy, but have a fraction of the power of any newspaper editor or proprietor. 'Civil Liberties' has never actually been about defending the bully against the bullied.

It would be lovely to see private lives of those journos made public. Not sex, that's boring: drug/alcohol abuse; debts; medical records. Maybe exposés on how they don't recycle, or drive when they could walk. Losing their temper, falling out with neighbours.

The focus on the sex lives of the celebrities in question just shows how cynical those journalists are. They claim some moral high ground about how these celebrities cash in on a 'Mr Clean' image in sponsorship deals. Apart from it being ridiculous to think that any adult actually thinks that our heroes are saints, why only sex? If they are people unfit to be our heroes, surely this will be on account of any number of flaws.

After all, journalists are in the public eye. By their logic, they have a duty to reveal all their own flaws, sins, crimes and bad temper to public scrutiny. If they don't, they are breaking their own rules. If they don't want to be so exposed, they ought to behave like absolute angels, or stay out of the public eye.  No faults, flaws, mistakes, weaknesses or off-days. Not reasonable, is it?

People need to remember that  'adultery' & 'promiscuity' are not illegal. I rather despise those who have used this legal tussle over privacy as a Trojan horse for their odious views on sexual behaviour. They defend the 'freedom' of a Press that it is out of control and try to deny you or me the freedom to have sex with whoever (adult, consenting) we choose. What strange warriors for freedom they are!

Some of them display a nasty puritanical streak; in some cases, this is made worse by knowing that those who say 'keep it in your trousers' are two-faced hypocrites who don't, but because they are nobodies, they are confident their behaviour won't be found out.

Or assume that they won't be - until, perhaps, someone close to them becomes 'news', perhaps in tragic circumstances, and they themselves will become victims of the Gutter Press's 'Right' to write about anyone's private life without constraint.

It's disingeneous to argue that injunctions about adultery are just paving the way for covering-up the crimes of capitalism. Using a judicial process, some sort of legal instrument, doesn't mean that the cases are similar or even concerned with the same branch of law. Just look at the wide range of cases covered by any type of court eg Small Claims, Administrative Court  - for example, why should a landlord/tenant dispute be seen as precedent-setting for cases relating to sales of goods. So, there seems no logical imperative that an individual's right to privacy should necessarily lead to cover-up of corporate atrocities.

When those journalists cry crocodile tears for 'freedom of the press' ask them how many abuses of corporate or political power they've exposed. Or have they acquiesced in Big Business curtailing their newly-found-to-be-precious Press Freedom? Rank hypocrisy! As one of my Tweeps commented "How many newspapers paid any attention to Trafigura, where the same legal process was used to cover up the crimes of capitalism? Certainly none of the papers that are leading the way over the celebrity injunctions, if I am not mistaken..."

I can only conclude that the precious 'Freedom of the Press' that newspaper employees are invoking, and their followers are unquestioningly endorsing, is purely the freedom to sell newspapers that somehow titillate readers with their grubby tales of everyday life.

Frankly, if you're turned on by non-specific tales of some bloke having a casual fling away from his marriage, I hate to think what will happen if you read an explicit modern novel, let alone internet erotica!  Although, I suspect they are less interested in writing/reading vague details about a footballer having an extra-marital fling than they are in the potential for soft-porn pictures of semi-clad attention-seeking women. So, congratulations to all of you arguing so strongly for that Press Freedom. Have you really thought it through?

I have reflected on whether my views on the whole 'Superinjunction' issue is affected by me being a massive fan of the footballer who is rumoured to be at the heart of the superinjunctions issue. I have reflected, and concluded, no, I am actually intelligent enough to form views quite independently of my ability to appreciate a great footballer.