farmdoc's blog post number 98

Paparazzi are freelance photographers who aggressively pursue celebrities, seeking candid photographs. That paparazzi exist means there’s a market for their services – which intrude upon the perceived privacy of public figures. Last Thursday Victorian Premier John Brumby berated protesters who were threatening to invade the privacy of himself and his family. When Mr Brumby chose to be a public figure, he gave up his right to privacy: 24/7 x 365. And the families of public figures are themselves public figures. How could they not be? In the year he’s been Premier, Brumby’s made decisions that have affected, pre-occupied, even consumed, some Victorian citizens 24/7 x 365. So should he and his family be permitted to partition their lives into public and private segments? The answer: No. As long as public figures reap the perks of public office, so should they be subjected to their opponents’ dissent provided the dissenters abide by laws which aren’t unfair and unreasonable. Of course the law is an ass – as in the recent British case where a judge – notably sans jury – awarded FIA President Max Mosely £60,000 damages for breach of privacy. I see no difference between the filming of Mosely’s orgy, and the paparazzi photographing some movie star topless in her garden. Covert footage of Mr Justice Eady – the Judge in Mosely’s case – could be interesting.