There's something which has been turning in my brain for more than 10 days...
Almost two weeks ago I re-red the answer of Greenslade and some sentences left me perplex ...
What surprises me, "shocks" me and makes me wonder about our world, it's the way some people are able to think or to see the life.
For example, Greenslade wrote :
The position that has now been reached in English law is that anything that pertains to your private life, and that includes what you do in the street, such as going shopping, is private
But what we (famous or not) buy or where we can go IS private !
I'm talking about him, but not only.
I met many people -most of them are men- who have a total incapacity to think "normally" or to see well things as they are .
I know it sounds subjective but its not: some values are universals and some are "universals" only for us as occidentals in our consumer society and could not be well seen in, I don't know, one of the last primitive tribe in the world.
And about values, I saw many reports and debates talking about the problem of the young generation "suffering" of a lack of these so precious values.
I remember well how specialists told that some teenagers have no notion of privacy at all due to an education by uncontrolled media, seeing everything about everyone's life and absolutely think that there's nothing wrong to film with their mobil phone friends of them slamming others schoolers -or teachers!- and put the film or the photos on the web (and I'm not talking about the fact that they don't even have the idea to help the attacked one, as if watching the scene in the small screen of their mobil made they were not real witnesses anymore!)
But reading Greenslade's answer, I realized that not only teenagers have this problem of values.
Apparently, as too many people, he takes as normal something which is not and I see much more the importance of the judgement of Loreena's process.
Really, thank you because it's more than time to give back to important and essential values the place they should have and I think this victory participated to it.
In the same idea he said:
Finally, and crucially, I believe that people should be as free as possible to express themselves, even if it impinges on another person's privacy on occasion".
And I don't know if this one is not the worst! I don't even understand how he manage to write this...?...
Greenslade also wrote, quoting (if I followed well) Clare Dyer who quoted Hugh Tomlinson QC (!...) :
This judgment is a turning point in the development of English privacy law. It means the courts will not allow publication of 'kiss and tell' stories after the breakdown of a friendship or relationship.
"At the same time, the court of appeal rejected the argument that a person who tells their own story to the press gives up their future privacy rights. The effect on the tabloids could be dramatic.
does he expect us to be sad?! Because he really seems to be affected by this.
And here, it's very twisted: not only lots of them (=him and people like him) are not able to to define what should be their values but also where they should be. They hang up to these tabloids and "kiss and tell" stories as if humanity would be lost without these things and we would be close to the end of the world (didn't I already say that I'm happy that it's more the end of THEIR world?...)
Always quoting Dyer, he wrote in the same way:
She added that unauthorised biographies could be particularly affected.
Well, if they are unauthorised it's a little bit normal that they are affected one day! No?
It's amazing that some people (and unfortunately not few) can think it's natural to let raptors do what they want: these "writers"/"journalists" who authorize themselves to write the life of someone else without his consent. How can they be so interested in others ' life (and I'm talking here of course about writing only answering to this insane greed about details of famous people's life and not a real historical portrait of a politician or a past writer, for example)?
I know that there was always this thing in our society: fairy tales (as Cinderella) was already a way for "basic" people to live through their leaders' life (king, prince, etc.) but we went too far .
Today, paparazzi would have probably tried to have a photo of Cinderella half necked or one of what she bought last week-end to the supermarket.
I understand that it helped "poor people" to hear fairy tales and showed them a good way to behave by following the story's moral but what I just like to add about this thirst of famous people's life, it's this little sentence from old asiatic wisdom:
(it's not exactly this but it's the meaning)"The time spent to live the dream of someone else it's a time you won't spend on your own dream"