| |  Sam, this post wasn't meant as an end-run around you on the other thread, I just liked the spirit of what Teresa said. Credit information and the like is still not supposed to be released without one's consent. I simply detest gossip columns, discussing other people's incomes, who donates what to whom, the notion that public figures five up the right to privacy - such that when not holding public appearances and press conferences paparazzi can use telephoto lenses to sell pictures of you engaged in private acts under the guise of freedom of speech.
Worst comes people listing information about co-workers or students or faculty on the internet in an attempt to harm or embarrass. Should I publish the address of every burkah wearing woman I see in NYC? What does this tend towards? Morally, it is repulsive. Politically, I believe that privacy rights should be protected in some form. I don't have a well worked out-doctrine. But attempts to intimidate should certainly be illegal or open to litigation. And if celebrities are engaged in non-inherently public events (such as going food-shopping) as opposed to attending award ceremonies, they should have full property rights over their images. If I can sell your image for $100,000 as you engage in private behavior, then obviously that image is property - and it is the property of the person photographed, not of the photograher who took it without consent. If this principle had been law in Paris in 1997, Princess Diana would not have ended as she did.
As for tax matters, if people wish to brag of their donations, let them. But publishing a list of all donors is an invasion of privacy.
Ted Keer
|
|
Making someone's life "public" isn't a set up for discrimination, but for fascism
