You will never get people to stop discriminating against those who they deem "disgusting" or "deviant" in some way, so the best thing is to keep matters private as much as possible. It's just not in some people's nature to live and let live - they are absolutely sure they know what's right and wrong. Or just look at donglegate - two guys make a joke between themselves, which is deemed offensive to women and both lose their jobs. In such a political climate it is absolutely not safe to share any personal details anywhere public. People have lost their livelihoods for posting that they don't like their jobs or their manager on facebook and forgetting to make the post private.
So no, I am absolutely not OK with allowing the sharing of my private life. I'm not OK with people knowing what dark jokes I've said about Nazis, I'm not OK with people knowing how I've cursed a minority in a moment of anger, I'm not OK with anyone knowing what I wrote in my diary.
I know that you can't stop the flow of information and that you're responsible for protecting yourself, but we should have some law to offer recompense to the party whose private life was exposed.
I guess this post was provoked by the recent Hogan vs Gawker case. I'm a bit divided on that - on the one hand it obviously damaged his reputation and career, and Gawker are responsible for that. You could argue that that is accidental damages, i.e. they didn't know the extent of the effect their actions would have. I guess it might make sense to offer insurance against that for the press - to cover court fees and damages arising from damaging a public figure during reporting. On the other hand, this is now posted, public, known and there is no silencing it. I would never ask Gawker to take down the sex tape, as that would both interfere with the freedom of the press and be absolutely ineffective in stopping the spreading of information. So my compromise is to both have Gawker pay, but not take down the video. I think this should make both equally unsatisfied, so it's the best compromise.
Could this then be a general compromise? If you share private details of someone doing something lawful, which damages his/her life, you are responsible and have to recompense him/her in some way (i.e. the court decides on how much you owe), but given the reality of the internet, the information can't be taken down.
Comments
You will never get people to stop discriminating against those who they deem "disgusting" or "deviant" in some way, so the best thing is to keep matters private as much as possible. It's just not in some people's nature to live and let live - they are absolutely sure they know what's right and wrong. Or just look at donglegate - two guys make a joke between themselves, which is deemed offensive to women and both lose their jobs. In such a political climate it is absolutely not safe to share any personal details anywhere public. People have lost their livelihoods for posting that they don't like their jobs or their manager on facebook and forgetting to make the post private.
So no, I am absolutely not OK with allowing the sharing of my private life. I'm not OK with people knowing what dark jokes I've said about Nazis, I'm not OK with people knowing how I've cursed a minority in a moment of anger, I'm not OK with anyone knowing what I wrote in my diary.
I know that you can't stop the flow of information and that you're responsible for protecting yourself, but we should have some law to offer recompense to the party whose private life was exposed.
I guess this post was provoked by the recent Hogan vs Gawker case. I'm a bit divided on that - on the one hand it obviously damaged his reputation and career, and Gawker are responsible for that. You could argue that that is accidental damages, i.e. they didn't know the extent of the effect their actions would have. I guess it might make sense to offer insurance against that for the press - to cover court fees and damages arising from damaging a public figure during reporting. On the other hand, this is now posted, public, known and there is no silencing it. I would never ask Gawker to take down the sex tape, as that would both interfere with the freedom of the press and be absolutely ineffective in stopping the spreading of information. So my compromise is to both have Gawker pay, but not take down the video. I think this should make both equally unsatisfied, so it's the best compromise.
Could this then be a general compromise? If you share private details of someone doing something lawful, which damages his/her life, you are responsible and have to recompense him/her in some way (i.e. the court decides on how much you owe), but given the reality of the internet, the information can't be taken down.