"You argue that the public needs at-your-fingertips access to everyone's dirty laundry in order to protect civil society from (idk? dictatorship that will inevitably ensue if sleazy reporters don't get their ad revenue?)"
Actually he argued much more narrowly that the public needs access to the dirty laundry of public figures. And I'm inclined to agree. This narrow argument is very different from the broad argument you're casting it as - I didn't see anywhere that OP said "everyone's dirty laundry".
That's not how I understood the granparent's comment (operative word is some).
In any case, the EU policy specifically excludes public figures. So to the extent that you're correct, s/he's reacting to an fictional interpretation of the law.
Which would be somewhat ironic, given that the premise of grandparent's argument is that an informed citizenry is crucial to the security of civil society.
Comments
"You argue that the public needs at-your-fingertips access to everyone's dirty laundry in order to protect civil society from (idk? dictatorship that will inevitably ensue if sleazy reporters don't get their ad revenue?)"
Actually he argued much more narrowly that the public needs access to the dirty laundry of public figures. And I'm inclined to agree. This narrow argument is very different from the broad argument you're casting it as - I didn't see anywhere that OP said "everyone's dirty laundry".
That's not how I understood the granparent's comment (operative word is some).
In any case, the EU policy specifically excludes public figures. So to the extent that you're correct, s/he's reacting to an fictional interpretation of the law.
Which would be somewhat ironic, given that the premise of grandparent's argument is that an informed citizenry is crucial to the security of civil society.