Greetings. First, my personal condolences to our British readers and the rest of the readership, over the untimely death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Sometimes horrible events like this tend to highlight problems in society of which we're all aware, but that we usually ignore in our everyday lives.
In this case, within hours of the accident, politicians and others in Britain, and elsewhere, were publicly calling for new "privacy" laws to help protect public figures from "overenthusiastic" photographers. The behavior of the hardcore "paparazzi" is often deplorable, to be sure. The extent to which they might have contributed to this accident, as opposed to other causative factors, is decidedly unclear at this time, so rushes to judgement from any point of view must be considered unwise.
And the same holds true for rushes to new laws inspired by this event that sound to be more "press restriction" legislation than real "privacy" laws. The risks of such legislation interfering with the legitimate investigative needs of journalists, particularly when dealing with political figures, seems very great, unless such laws are extremely carefully crafted.
In the U.S. (including right here in Los Angeles), legislators are also now calling for such new laws. Whether such legislation will be able to pass constitutional muster is an open question. But one thing seems very clear--legislation hurriedly introduced in a "kneejerk" reaction to dramatic events is almost always highly problematical, and often does more harm than good.
This points up a serious risk for the future. Those in this country who feel that the "Freedom of Speech" 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides inviolate protection should consider that even the original Constitution and its amendments can be (and have been) changed--that's exactly what the amendments do, of course. The 1st Amendment could potentially be altered with a set of "special circumstances" where it would no longer be applicable. Such a move might not be as unlikely as some might think. Imagine the political climate that could result after an event of the sort which just occurred in Britain, or some mass disaster or terrorist action, where the press, other media, or even the Internet were implicated as being in the communications path that led to the event.
The desire to "shoot the messenger" in such a case could be overwhelming, and combined with public emotion, all manner of unwise legislation, up to and including kneejerk modifications of the Constitution, could be conceivable.
So from a societal standpoint, it might be wise to look upon the events of the last week, and the public reactions to them, as a reminder of the great extent that our legislative systems, and our lives which are so intertwined with them, can be impacted by singular events of tragic intensity.
--Lauren--
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum
www.vortex.com
Back to @Man's Homepage