> From: "Lasse Karlsson" > Subject: Re: on the subject of privacy > > From: "Bob Walkden" > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3246718.stm > > > Bob > > > > Let's hope that the laws which allow this verdict remain unchanged, and > that any appeal won't change the verdict.. > > Actually, lets not. > William Robb
Why is that? Two of them were accused (and aquitted) of invasion of privacy for shooting pictures of (her as severely injured in) the car crash, as it already had taken place. The third was accused because he had shot pictures of her before the crash occured. I take it you would support a law which deems such actions be an invasion of privacy. "Shooting pictures of car crash victims is an invasion of privacy"? "Shooting pictures of someone who is about to get injured or die in a car crah is an invasion of privacy."? "Shooting pictures of a person (or celebrity) riding in a car is an invasion of privacy."? >From a general "morality of photography" point of view "The Death of Princess Diana >case" is an interesting one. Whatever "Princess Diana" was at the time of her death, whatever market value she had, whatever she fed on, was by virtue of all the pictures (and stories) that were shot and published of her. On that level it's a joint venture between the celebrity and the media. Diana invited and encouraged media coverage - this was what she lived by and earned her money and status by - and the media knew that they earn money on the public interest in this figure. At the end of the chain were all the people, the Diana-users or royalty-addicts, paying their money to get the shooting done, but now yelling "crucify, crucify"... I think that those who at the time yelled the loudest "crucify them" at the photographers, also were the ones who actually were paying for (and in a way "hired") the photographers to do this kind of work, by demanding and buying all the newspapers, magazines and books of stories and pictures of her. (I'm not including William Robb among the above mentioned.) My take is that the deaths were caused by the drunken driver who no doubt would have been found guilty of both the speeding as well as a number of traffic violations, which also put a great number of people in the street at great risk of getting injured, maybe even killed. The passengers, leaving the dinner with their judgement possibly influenced by the alcohol in their wine, may or may not have encouraged the driver to take to this kind of wreckless driving. However, this scenario may have been too sad and too much for the general public to take. Scapegoats have to be created. Let's get them low life photographers at the bottom of our pit. "Crucify, crucify...!!" Or....? Lasse
