A couple of weeks ago I looked at two of the arguments put forward regarding super-injunctions. At the time I made the point that they only served to gag the truth, never untruth. I think this point needs more attention.
As a Libertarian I don't want the State to get involved in making decisions for us. This includes things like which foods are good for us and which aren't as well as deciding which businesses are good and which aren't. I believe that us people collectively can regulate each other's actions and attitudes in a better way. We can do this by voting with our wallets. If we don't like the way a certain company treats its employees we can refuse to buy from them. Conversely, if we think that a certain bank has invested wisely we are more likely to lend it our money.
This entire system, though, relies on knowledge. We have to know what people are doing in order to make decisions about whether to encourage those actions or discourage them. And that means, I think, that the press (and everyone else) must be free to report whatever they want about whomever they want so long as what they report is true and accurate. And if it isn't then the person they damaged can sue.
It might be that the off-field antics of a footballer are not obviously something we should care about. But this is not a decision for anyone other than ourselves to make. Because there may be enough people who care about it to stop going to see that guy's team play, or maybe just refuse to buy products he endorses. Who knows? Who cares?
The basic point is that in order to be able to make informed decisions we must be informed. And a footballer's right to privacy means that his house cannot be bugged by journalists, it shouldn't mean that his mistress cannot tell all if she chooses.
No comments:
Post a Comment