As promised, click on the title above to go to the Guardian article on the Loreena McKennitt case. She's a folk singer who successfully prevented a (former?) friend from publishing large parts of a book about their relationship, claiming that it invaded her privacy. This sets an important precendent for future cases that might be taken on these grounds. What will it mean for all those "kiss 'n' tell" stories that are the lifeblood of the Sunday tabloids? How might it affect the earning potential of all the WAGs an wannabe WAGs? How will the audience survive without salacious tales of footballers and pop stars misbehaving? More seriously, will this mean that public figures will be able to behave in a very hypocritical manner without ever being held to account for it? Imagine a situation where an evangelical bishop was able to block a story about a homosexual relationship on the basis that it invaded his privacy, while every Sunday he preached about how wrong homosexuality is.
2 comments:
Too much precedence has been placed on the Ash and Mckennitt story in terms of the deabte on journalists and auothors freedom of expression.
Ash and Mckennitt's situation is all too familiar of sunday tabloid kiss and tell stories, with a former friendship turning into a petty spat. Mckennitt is entitled to her privacy and i disagree with the way Ash is portrayed as if she's the hard done by party in all of this, which is stressed by the constant mentioning of her having no money and having to fight her case without a barrister.
If their friendship once meant so much to Ash then why would she want to make it a public affair for everyone to read about. It seems like a ploy to gain some success and make money. Mckennitt was right to protect her privacy.
The example of the homosexual bishop is an extreme case of privacy. Although he is being hypocritical to the people he is preaching to, it could be said thatn he is justified in wanting to have a private life and not have oit paraded to the public.
The bishop example is only hypothetical but why should his church community change their lifestyle (if they are gay) or even feel a terrible shame because of what he preaches, when all along he is enjoying that very same lifestyle he so demonises? Newspaper editors would claim that he is entitled to a private life so long as it doesn't contradict what he preaches to his church community.
I'm not sure what you mean by "too much precedence".
Post a Comment