Injunctions

[poliphilo]

Gossip is a basic, low-down human activity. It's hard to see how society could function without it.

 

Sometimes it's malicious, sometimes merely informational.  

 

If gossip is untrue it becomes slander and libel. And it can be addressed in law. No problems there.

 

But if the gossip is true it functions as a kind of rough justice. Mr Moneybags the adulterer may not like being talked about, but tough; he should have kept his trousers on.

 

And if he goes round the neighbourhood trying to shut people up he becomes a bully and an oppressor.

 

And that's at least as bad as being an adulterer.

 

I don't know whether gossip can be defined as a human right, but when someone tries to stop me doing it I feel that it is- and then I rebel and get stroppy and feel all righteous about it.

 

Most people do. Which is why a certain footballer's name is all over the Internet and his mug shot is on the front page of a Scottish newspaper and everybody is laughing at him.

Comments

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

The question is, though, who is entitled to privacy? I mean, if you or I did something equally sneaky, nobody gives a damn, but because he did it, there are nasty tabloid papers making money out of it. Just because somebody is famous, do they have to live like they are saintly hermits or have the ugly consequences spammed to the entire world? That really would be the price of fame.

You might have expected me to take a contrary view just for the hell of it.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Of course the irony is that if he'd just faced the music, it would all have been over relatively quickly because the media have the attention span of a butterfly with ADHD and after the initial buzz, they would have moved on to new things.

As it is, it's dragging out for ages and people like me, who don't read the tabloids and normally would have remained completely oblivious, are now aware of what he's been up to.

Besides, we already have libel laws. If what the papers printed was untrue, he could sue them. If it was true, then he should face the public, apologise to his fans and then behave himself in future.

I do take your point about a double standard in that the hoi polloi can do what they like -- though they will be censured by local gossip and, of course, damage their relationships -- but if a sportsman is making money out of his image as an upright family man, eg through sponsorship deals, then he would be profiting from a lie. If, on the other hand, all he's doing is playing football and nothing else, then I don't see that it matters who he's sleeping with.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I think that's the reality of the situation now- if you want fame you surrender your privacy.

And perhaps it's not so bad- We all know Wayne Rooney's a slag, but it hasn't stopped him scoring goals- or having kids wanting to wear his shirt.