Do we have a right to know everything? If a public person has an "illicit" relationship do I have an absolute right to know or is the person entitled to privacy? What if the relationship is going through a rough patch and one of the parties is seeking solace elsewhere and then the couple get back together? Would revelation in the media help or hinder the reconciliation?
If the public figure is someone whose
moral compass is part of his job; the Archbishop of Canterbury, an
Inman, the Chief Rabbi, a Catholic priest then I would argue that yes I
have a right to know. But if he or she is a pop star, an actor, a
leading businessman then what right do I have to pry into their life?
the person is involved in making public policy or has influence on it,
or a public figure deliberately projects a public image that is at odds
with their actual behaviour, then the public has an interest - as in a stake, an investment (actual or metaphorical).
the person has no influence on public policy then there is definitely
no vital public interest in knowing about their private life. If the
person is a mere "celebrity" then any claimed "public interest" may well
in fact be mere prurience and an interest in tittle-tattle.
think the David Furnish case qualifies as being in the public interest
to know about because he and his partner have had and continue to have
an influence on public policy, they promote a lifestyle and project an
image of themselves that appears to be at variance with actual
Promoting the gagging of reports of
misbehaviour of an actor as an affront to free speech and press freedom
is a poor example, in my humble opinion.
Labour Call Centre Staff on 12 Hours a Week Get 30p Pay Rise - Staff at Labour’s Newcastle call centre aren’t exactly over the moon about a 30p pay rise they’ve been given in line with this month’s increase to the Na...
10 minutes ago