Right to Privacy

Remove all ads!

Are you kidding? I mean, what does the criminal code say? What is the criteria? The way it sounds currently if anyone say anything negative about you, it would qualify as slander.

There are two basic elements in the US to slander. You must 1) prove the statement was false, and 2) prove that you were harmed by the statement. 2) is usually a given, as people who are slandered typiaclly have something bad happen to them, like losing their jobs. Even if you can't prove 2), you can claim defamation of character.

 

True. What about the pics that were published in all the newspapers of the dead floating around in New Orleans after the hurricane?

 

@Aldeth: It just says defamation about one, "insults directly or with the intent that the insult should reach the person" about the other potential charge. It's the judges who won't let go of you if the information is true. It only works if the target is a politician or a celebrity or similar and the bad info is somewhat related to his field of activity. Then you get away with it if you prove it's true.

@Shell:

I can't speak for the UK, US or any other country, but in Poland, showing too close close-ups of dead people is illegal. They still do it regardless and get away with it. I think dead human bodies shouldn't be shown before a certain late hour (I mean on the news or in documentaries, not necessarily all kinds of movies).

[ September 30, 2005, 20:39: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Needless to say, I completely disagree with that law. I do think it is wrong to spread malicious rumors or statements about someone, but if it's fact and not rumor, I don't see how the person is defamed. If you are so insulted by it, maybe you shouldn't have undertaken the action to be labelled as such in the first place.

So in other words, if someone had been previously arrested for prostitution, and then you mentioned she was a prostitute, she can sue you for slander, even though you could easily prove that she does have a conviction for prostitution on her record? That's not right.

 

You could even get a suspended term for calling a theft convict a thief, I think. I also disagree completely. Another problem, apart from it being so unjust, is also how burdensome it is to place some kind of universal obligation on every citizen to guard every other citizen's reputation in good faith. That's absurd. You shouldn't be expected to act in that person's best interest or anything, or guard secrets, unless you've made a promise or some such.

 

It's ridiculous. I freely admit that there are some strange laws on the books in the U.S. and other countries have better interpretations of some laws, but this is one case where I agree with the U.S. law entirely - it's not slander if it's true.

If it's not defamatory to call someone like me who practices chemistry a chemist, then it should not be defamatory to call someone who practices theivery a theif. Just like one who rapes is a rapist. It's not slander, it is an accurate description of what the person does.

Of course there is the caveat that (just like in every other court case) the burden of proof lies with the person making the accusation. You certainly can be sued (and probably successfully) if you call someone a prostitute and there is absolutely no evidence of that person ever engaging in prostitution.

 

In Polish court practice, it's defamation because you damage that person's reputation and stance within the person's circles, perhaps in job-related things. Of course, if you announced that the local GP bought his diploma or the local priest wasn't really a priest, or the local pro-family politician had his wife abort three pregnancies, that wouldn't get you behind the bars. But in the prostitute wife example... Perhaps it wasn't the most charitable and elegant thing to do, but I agree with you that it shouldn't be a crime if it's true information.

 

I guess intent is important too. If you're bringing up an allegation for the simple sake of damaging someone's character, it's one thing, but if it's relavent for the position that person is holding (such as the examples you cited), then I think not only should it not be a crime, but it actually may be in the society's best interest to have that information known.

 

My stance is liars have no right to privacy or should have none, so far as their net of lies goes. The other lawyer wannabie in my family agreed. I guess blackmail should always be a crime, perhaps damaging someone's character as you say, but yeah, no easy ride for liars.

 

Actually, Aldeth, it is also slander/liable if you make no attempt to find out if it is true or not. If you spread a dammaging rumor that may or may not be true, you are guilty even if it ends up being true. I don't know if you are culpable if you add that you don't know if it is true or not.
As for the babies, I understand if some parents don't want lots of people bothering them or cooing at their child, but they can make a special request. I don't think most people care and I know more than a few, especially the fathers, that WANT to be asked questions and congratulated and whatsuch.
As for the red-light cams here, the city was making a killing off them, but a small group of citizens started making a huge stink about it being an invation of their privacy, even though there was no abuse of any kind, and the politicians caved in because they were afraid of loosing votes. They didn't even put the issue to the public! After the fact, a local news station did and they found that 90% of the people they polled said they liked the cams!
I don't know how true it is, but I heard that NY city and London were thinking about putting cameras on high-crime streets and such but this whole 'right to privacy' issue came up and I never heard any more about it. Can anyone verify?

 

That gets close to the so called "relata refero" (I am relating the related), which isn't considered an excuse in Polish courts. I suppose you could get away with telling a person about his or her fiance(e)s former or present but secret life in order that marrying the latter could be avoided. That would take a real little Richard of a judge to sentence you for. Frankly, I would do that even if it were a crime spelt out in the criminal code if a friend or relative of mine ended up in such a situation, nor would I suffer a lie uncalled. Well, I guess a friend wouldn't have it too hard. The person who got sentenced was not the husband's friend or relative and the woman was already married to her husband, so it couldn't have been avoided anymore, so the motive might have been spite and therefore punished by the judge. But I still have mixed feelings. It would surely have been a heck of a lot easier for the husband not to know. Especially if she had changed since then. I would keep such a secret secret, if asked, if I knew the person in question had changed and the marriage had been concluded. If not yet concluded but only planned... well, that would be more difficult. At any rate, I wouldn't suffer a lie.