As some of you may be aware, on October 4, 2007 a settlement was reached in the McKennitt/Ash privacy case and the press release concerning this development can be found at the following link: McKennitt Privacy Case Ends - Press Release
Many of you have been very supportive of Loreena during this past couple of years and she is deeply appreciative of that support. We also realise that some people have had questions and concerns regarding this case and we are seeking the most appropriate method of addressing these.
Since it is vital that all discussions are focused on the analysis of the case and its broader implications rather than on Ms Ash personally, we would invite concerned readers to write us at postmaster@quinlanroad.com as we intend to collate and address these concerns in a more general way. Those wanting to leave letters of support are invited to either leave them on this message board or send them to Postmaster.
For your convenience we invite interested readers to familiarize themselves with the judgments of Justice Eady of November 2005 and the Court of Appeal of November 2006 which can be found in the UK privacy case section of this QR web site. In so far as a property dispute plays a central role to understanding the privacy case, we would encourage readers to consider this section in particular. It can be found in paragraphs 106-128 .
We are also aware that this case has caused much concern among some journalists and media who suggest this case has been a blow to freedom of expression. Loreena has most recently addressed this issue on a blog site of the UK Guardian writer Roy Greenslade at this link. Loreena’s comments are found in the comments section following his blog.
Other comments by Loreena regarding the media’s approach to this story can be found on our comments page which includes Loreena’s open letter to the Canadian Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders in January, 2007 entitled, “Who Watches the Watchdog?”
We thank everyone who has taken an interest in this case and has offered us their thoughts.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mark,
Considering what a huge source of information internet has become, I have recently got to know that some years ago another book about Loreena was released in Canada. The title is Celtic Quest. If possible, I’d like to know if Loreena supported the author and the project, if they collaborated with each other and, if it was not so, especially what kind of reaction this publication elicited in her. Should I speculate about it, aside from content, she didn’t like that kind of initiative , but I may be wrong. However, what did she think of it? Does anyone, i.e. QR staff, know anything about it?
My best wishes to Loreena!
Posts: 245 | Location: italy | Registered: November 01, 2007
I had no idea about the problem that Loreena had...but my opinion about this one matter is: When any person strikes you physically nobody doubts that it is a crime and that a punishment deserves for it.... For me, when someone betrays your confidence telling your intimacies or being invented...is like a if they were striking our heart....And it must be avoided and punished!!! I hope sincerely that the topic has angered to loreena, but I wish that the beech saddened because a tear is not deserved..
In speaking of privacy, that is why you should never give a stranger your telephone number and address. I hate to be off-topic, but this is off-topic. For instance, I can't stand the U.S. government endorsing such legislation that deliberately invades people's privacy. Ms. McKennitt would most disapprove of it. Nevertheless, the current issue is privacy vs. freedom of press, as well as, in some cases, trying to spare others from impending danger. --Loreenya
Posts: 268 | Location: Sterling Heights, Michigan | Registered: December 04, 2007
Recently in Spain, Telma Ortiz, sister of Princess Letizia of Spain, asked a court not to be filmed. She has suing 57 news outlets (magazines, tv channels, newspapers). She became a "famous person" when her sister Letizia married to Prince Felipe of Spain, otherwise she would be anonymous. But the judge ruled against Telma.
It's a pity, the media invades her privacy and she can't avoid it. The media says she is a notorious person now and they have to report about her. They follow her to the dentist or to the airport, everywhere. I don't know why public needs to now all that things, where is the news? But, for the Spanish media, there are different kinds of notorius or famous people, it's very curious, because her sister, princess Letizia of Spain doesn't suffer from any harassment in spite that she is the princess, they don't follow her to the dentist and so on. It's clear for me that, it must be a non written rule, the Spanish royal family is untouchable, but as journalists say these days: If Telma wants to be anonymous she can't attend to any royal event as the baptism of her niece". It's incredible the power of the media. Just because they say it Telma can't visit her nieces or sister.
I commend you, Loreena for your courage and for protecting your privacy rights. I was really quite angry that someone felt that there was something to gain in infringing on the rights of another person. That it was their duty or right to share information that was not granted the permission to do so. It is sad that some individuals choose this act of contravention for their own purposes. And it is unfortunate that they do not appreciate another person’s feelings or personal trials and tribulations that were not to be revealed, especially without their consent. They are private. I pray that Ms. Ash comes to understand the value of one’s own personal life lived and the emotions stirred when someone else defies it. Maybe she will also come to know that friendship is far more valuable than any figure presented on a page.
On a lighter note, it gives me consolation that people stand up against the injustice of the infringement on individual privacy. I know that there is still a fight to be had, but it is good to know that it will not be tolerated. Loreena, we stand behind you. I support you wholeheartedly.
Blessings, Lizjul
Posts: 21 | Location: Westchester, New York | Registered: April 17, 2008
Loreena, thank you for your inspiration and courage.
Warm regards, Shan-Lyn[/QUOTE
Excellent article Shan-Lyn! I agree totally that personel privacy should be upheld and hope everyone gets a chance to read your article. I think about the perverse poopaRATsy following Britany Spears around as an extreme example of invasion of privacy. More laws are needed such as California's “anti-stalkerazzi” law which allows celebrities to sue anyone who invades their privacy. If we all "E-mail your article to a friend" perhaps the word will get out especially regarding Loreena's plight!
Robert
Posts: 10 | Location: Danvers, Ma | Registered: March 18, 2007
Has anyone ever seen the cartoon about A secret agent that was followed by A harp that could talk.My memory is rather sketchy yet sean connery was the agent voice and the harp was A girls voice.It ran for A season and they took it off the air cause they were'nt fair to sean concerning the plots of the stories.This would be A great valentine gift to loreena,I think you would get A good laugh.It was sort of like blues clues yet much better.Have A happy love you loreena.wizard
Originally posted by Mark: Hello Message Board folk,
As some of you may be aware, on October 4, 2007 a settlement was reached in the McKennitt/Ash privacy case and the press release concerning this development can be found at the following link: McKennitt Privacy Case Ends - Press Release
Many of you have been very supportive of Loreena during this past couple of years and she is deeply appreciative of that support. We also realise that some people have had questions and concerns regarding this case and we are seeking the most appropriate method of addressing these.
Since it is vital that all discussions are focused on the analysis of the case and its broader implications rather than on Ms Ash personally, we would invite concerned readers to write us at postmaster@quinlanroad.com as we intend to collate and address these concerns in a more general way. Those wanting to leave letters of support are invited to either leave them on this message board or send them to Postmaster.
For your convenience we invite interested readers to familiarize themselves with the judgments of Justice Eady of November 2005 and the Court of Appeal of November 2006 which can be found in the UK privacy case section of this QR web site. In so far as a property dispute plays a central role to understanding the privacy case, we would encourage readers to consider this section in particular. It can be found in paragraphs 106-128 .
We are also aware that this case has caused much concern among some journalists and media who suggest this case has been a blow to freedom of expression. Loreena has most recently addressed this issue on a blog site of the UK Guardian writer Roy Greenslade at this link. Loreena’s comments are found in the comments section following his blog.
Other comments by Loreena regarding the media’s approach to this story can be found on our comments page which includes Loreena’s open letter to the Canadian Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders in January, 2007 entitled, “Who Watches the Watchdog?”
We thank everyone who has taken an interest in this case and has offered us their thoughts.
Posts: 1 | Location: Greenville, South Carolina | Registered: February 12, 2008
Originally posted by angie: I just read this on the CNN homepage. It's a new proposed "Britney's Law" about limiting paparazzi access to celebrities. You can read the whole bit, including commentary, here:
Thanks for sharing this Angie. I was reading something to this effect earlier today.
Rather interesting to note, that the 'key word' here is "Taxpayers".
Is this what it will take? For "taxpayers" to complain? On the other side of the wall, something seriously needs to be done about the "First Amendment Rights". Indeed, it's a 'slippery road' to walk on.
Aye, the laws are clashing... another fine example of loopholes in the system. May the better 'law' win. There are too many 'fine lines' here. Something needs a change.
As I've always stipulated, "If rules destroy, then they weren't meant to exist, but rather to be modified to a more realistic situation".
I just read this on the CNN homepage. It's a new proposed "Britney's Law" about limiting paparazzi access to celebrities. You can read the whole bit, including commentary, here:
Originally posted by Anxious 2: Hi I am not sure this can be compared to what happened to ms. McKennitt...
I just got a little uppset. I read in the newspaper, that some people start taking pictures of a person they see on the street. Then put it on the net and write a few comments on how the pictured person look. Then other people sees it and reply on the coment. Some even know the person, and add other pictures and comments. The person exposed isn't necessarily aware of this. I think it is a very cruel thing to start bully people like this. And I think it is very unfortunate because this person has no chance on Earth to defend him- or herself. He or she might not even be like discribed. And it will be very hard to brake down thise rumours. Especially if they are malicious!
Well. This is truly an insult to human privacy!
Anxious 2
Hi Anxious 2,
I think the people that do this don't see they are being cruel, they are so self-absorbed and lacking in compassion for others feelings that they think it's just good fun. One could never get away with printing something like that in the newspaper or a magazine without being sued, it should be the same for the internet.
! If I have been too intrusive and indiscreet I make my apologies 
, but I may be wrong. However, what did she think of it? Does anyone, i.e. QR staff, know anything about it?
