Privacy Issues

[Nnnnsic]

This is a forum, am I not correct?

For the most part, when someone makes a post they're more often then not stating their opinion.

That said, if I were to say something defamatory would you not have to prove in some way or another that I've cost you money from stating an opinion?

[stubbsy]

This is a forum, am I not correct?

For the most part, when someone makes a post they're more often then not stating their opinion.

That said, if I were to say something defamatory would you not have to prove in some way or another that I've cost you money from stating an opinion?

I'd like to think you are right Leigh, but the Gutnick case Bob referred to is a very interesting one. He successfully sued for defamation in a jurisdiction of his choosing (here) when the company claimed they should be sued in the jurisdiction they resided in (the US since they were a US based paper) and where defamation laws were less draconian than ours. Gutnick was successful in court (thus setting a precedent) in establishing that wherever the internet could be accessed the defamation has occured and can thus be sued over. So while speech may be free the consequences are not and in the case of the internet the opportunity to sue is GREATER than say if the same views are expressed in the print media.

And on the topic of defamation - the laws in that regard vary a lot around the world. Here defamation is not about your opinion costing you money its about the harm the comments do to your reputation (although please see my tag line disclaimer ). Money only comes into it at judgment time when you are paid in order to compensate you for the indignity. One final point - the law here is such that it's harder to defame a public figure than a private one. SO now where is Thaddeus to correct my mistakes?

[lejazzcat]

Ok well ide like then to know who gave the police the right to take my photo at the last red light camera ?
Arent they invading my right to privacy ?
My right to accelerate at a yellow light?

[rjlhughes]

Speeding on camera?


I'm sure that wasn't you.....


I think it was Gary.

[rjlhughes]

I wish you hadn't said that

[lejazzcat]

Bob, it was just on the news.



"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is mearly energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves.
Here's Tom with the weather.
Bill Hicks"

[lejazzcat]

I wish you hadn't said that

Keeping it REAL Bob,
Life has so many different angles -that nobody knows which way is the best, or right...
He spent his career, and by the look of it , his life, making out that he did .
Now his career, and nearly his life are over. Just like that .
Even he wasnt allowed his privacy .The cameras followed him into the ambulance !

[Grev]

Yep. While using my 70-200 VR to take the pic below at Nobby's Beach (Newcastle) earlier this year a couple walked past behind me and the guy said to his girlfriend (loudly) "I didn't think people were allowed to take photos at the beach". I ignored him.

That is disrespectful. I would sue for assault.

All in all, you can't help what other people think and if they think you're a paedophile, then you are... Sometimes people really need to be less paranoid and see more grey instead of just black and white (no pun intended ).

[rjlhughes]

It's a tragic tale. I wonder if he knew about today's Telegraph story?

It's almost never spoken about but there's often a spate of copy cat attempts after stories like this.

[thaddeus]

I logged on to this thread to contirubte to what I thought was a meaningful discussion about privacy issues. Clearly I have come to the wrong place: what I find is:
- lejazzcat's joking and laughter at John Brogden's suicide attempt
- post after post adding no value to the discussion

If people would like to continue the discussion, how about discussing the ethics of the photographers and publishers who published photos of John Brogden in an ambulance. It seems completely unethical to me and makes a mockery of any so-called "profession."

[gstark]

I wish you hadn't said that

Keeping it REAL Bob,
Life has so many different angles -that nobody knows which way is the best, or right...
He spent his career, and by the look of it , his life, making out that he did .
Now his career, and nearly his life are over. Just like that .
Even he wasnt allowed his privacy .The cameras followed him into the ambulance !

I've just removed the post in question.

I considered it to be offensive and in unquestionably bad taste, not to mention off-topic.

I do believe we can have fun without stooping to that level

[stubbsy]

Thaddeus (and others)

I haven't seen the pics of John Brogden and don't want to. I think that any pictures of someone regardless of their notoriety in circumstances like this are morally indefensible. I don't agree with this man's politics, but I certainly think he's been harshly treated by the media and both sides of politics. It is sad that someone who has clearly devoted himself in a very worthwhile way to the good of his constituency has been brought to such a solution and is an inditement of how the right to privacy often runs second place to the public's desire for the salacious.

We have had lots of talk about the need to proscribe what people can and can't photograph and you can bet that the vast bulk of the discussion will be along the lines of you should be able to take pics of whatever you like. I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's what gets done with the resulting images that should be tackled by the legislation. Unfortunately that is a much harder task and the more likely outcome is blanket prohibition of image capture in certain circymstances rather than rules about the publication of images which at the end of the day is really what all the fuss is about.

I have a journo friend whose view is the story trumps everything. Sadly I think the same applies to pro photographers and, knowing there are pics of JB, is enough to make me glad my photography is a hobby rather than a living.

[Glen]

Thaddeus and Stubbsy, I agree completely with you guys, a written article can be considered in the public interest so people are familiar with the state of mind, but photos are just ghoulish voyuerism. There really is no public interest in that.

[gstark]

I have a journo friend whose view is the story trumps everything. Sadly I think the same applies to pro photographers and, knowing there are pics of JB, is enough to make me glad my photography is a hobby rather than a living.

Just to clarify, the post I deleted did not contain a photo.

It was simply a very bad joke, made in extremely poor taste. And coming from me, that's one hell of a statement.

[stubbsy]

Gary

I figured that. I was referring to the photos which were in the print media (and probably the electronic media by now!). I note that news.com.au has a video feed of this linked in their online editions What benefit is served by that!

[Greg B]

I think that the old saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" resonates strongly through the media, and there is now an increased expectation on the part of the consumer that there will be an image - still or moving - with any major story.

(Observation only, no barrow being pushed)

[rjlhughes]

The video from Sky News is pretty fair actually. I'm not sure that's where the close up stills came from, although they are video.

Suicides and attempts are treated very seriously by the Press Council - because of the copy cats. There are more copy cats than you're ever told about - for self evident reasons.

All journos are trained to get the story, to be on the scene, to get the words or pictures and then share them. Pictures are proof that the event happened.

For most journos or photographers or editors to have those pictures and to know it was front page material, and that public should know about it, yet to suppress them would take an extraordinary decision.

Until you're in that position as a reporter or photographer it's hard to know how tough that decision can be.

The question that may be arising is whether the Telegraph's story today about other misdeeds was a contributing factor.

On the other hand, the initial story about the Hilton drinks was suppressed for weeks, but certainly I'd heard it. And now the journos who didn't tell it are being taken to task.

These are not simple issues.

[thaddeus]

rjlhughes, Do you stand by the editors' decision to publish or not?

[Glen]

SMH take on things http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/is- ... 03009.html


The telling final line compared to the News reporting: "We were chasing the political story not the personal story. We were not doing further investigations into his past behaviour. Mr Brogden had stepped down and we felt the story had moved on."



It is implied in the News Ltd story that they were following him and were waiting outside as he tried to commited suicide. Charming.

[Greg B]

At the risk of repeating myself, the Murdoch press, the commercial TV "current affairs" programs, are nothing less than disgraceful. Their attempts to justify their behaviour - free press, public's right to know etc - are hypocritical and cynical.

There is a crisis of integrity. The government's plans to relax cross media ownership - which seem to have no potential to improve the standards of journalism, but rather to curry favour with media magnates - only foreshadow a further decline. If that is possible.

[rjlhughes]

Thaddeus,

I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision. Yesterday I probably wouldn't have wanted to publish it, given my recent experiences. When I worked in that culture I probably would have.

I would have mustered the arguments that it was an important news story, this was the man who had been the alternative premier, who had said that he was still playing a role in NSW politics, and the public had the right to know. And that the pictures were documentary proof of what had happened.

When you apply the Dutch question - you could say that these pictures may not have been contrary to his interests in that they may have engendered public sympathy for his fall.

It's sad for his wife and son, the argument would run, but what he did was his decision, and we're just reporting the facts. There were a series of decisions that he made that led to this situation - the publication of the pictures was a foreseeable consequence for him.

I often say that free will is really about "being free to won't". Saying no to publishing something can be very difficult where you can be over ridden in an environment where getting the news out is everything.

These can be very difficult issues, that's what makes me so interested in what other people think too. The point I'm also making is that it is very tempting to publish, or to sell the pictures if you have them. Very few people suppress.


I think it's a great tragedy.

[Glen]

Bob, would you have run with todays first edition of the Telegraph, which detailed older incidents, in light of the fact he resigned as leader of the opposition on Monday. Can an argument be made that there is public interest (meaning public good not public curiosity) in the story, when at that point he is really only the elected representative of a few thousand people on the northern beaches?

[rjlhughes]

Greg,

I'm glad you're not targeting all the media in your comments. In fact I'm tempted to say you're not being selective enough. But there's no point trying to deal with this on a case by case basis.

However much some people may, in your view, pervert the principles of journalism a free press, and yes, the 'public's right to know' are vital in a democracy.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the importance of media diversity. Thank goodness for technology.

The media we get is the media that we want, and which we support, as a society.

[gstark]

The issue here though is not photography.

It's the mindlessness tabloid attitude that caused the telecrap to run with their first edition this morning.

The facts are very simple: Brogden made an error of judgement at a party. He was drunk, and he did some things wrong, the worst of which was his mail-order bride comment.

That story was newsworthy and was correctly, IMHO, published on Monday.

On Tuesday his falling on his sword remained newsworthy, as did the leadup to the selection of his successor.

The first edition of this morning's tele was way out of line: what the hell were they thinking when they decided to run with that story? He had already been burned at the stake, and his burial was a matter of process.

To run with that story was maliciousness of the highest order. My understanding is that there were Telecrap vultures waiting at his office before he went there last night.

They were waiting in prey, the pathetic, poor excuses for flotsam.

They couldn't hold a true job writing even as a ghost writer for Dr Seuss

[rjlhughes]

Glen,

I raised that issue with someone at News Ltd early today.

I'd call it "the blood on your hands accusation".

It follows the suggestion that it was the threat of publicity about Renee Rivkin's divorce that tipped him over the edge. It's a very serious question for journos to confront.

I'm not in a position to comment. I wasn't there, I don't know what factors may have influenced the decision, including what may have been left out of the piece.

There will be plenty of thoughtful comment - including I'd think Thursday's Australian on the subject.

If you really want to get involved have a drink in one of the pubs near News Ltd this afternoon.

Of far greater interest to me is how the story was talked about for a couple of weeks before it was published, and how it actually broke in the media.

[Glen]

Glen,

I'd call it "the blood on your hands accusation".

I think that would be a fair comment. At the point they were running the story it seems more in the public curiosity (one could almost say they were vindictive) than for any need to know for the public.

[leek]

Has The Australian's state political reporter Andrew West quit in disgust over News Limited's coverage of John Brogden's private life?

Rumours are swirling this morning that West, a respected journo who penned a recent Bob Carr biography, filed a column last night arguing that the Tele's attack on Brogden was a disgrace. News sources say the column was pulled and West quit this morning in disgust.

According to News sources, emotions are running high at the paper and West, who's a "deep sensitive guy," was probably shaken up by the Brogden suicide attempt and the ruthless way Brogden's private life has been invaded by the media.

Another News Limited source said West was highly regarded at the Oz and when tensions cooled it was likely that editor Chris Mitchell would try and convince him to stay.

At least someone there knows the meaning of ethics...