Today it has been reported that yet another supposed big name TV star has successfully prevented his indiscretions from being made public knowledge. This follows a decision earlier in the week to give a Premier League footballer protection from what appears to be further confirmation that he can't keep it in his trousers.
I have two problems with super-injunctions, both closely interwoven; the first is that if you are rich and famous, you are able to have control over the media. Celebs are very quick to wheel out the Article 8 arguments if it suits them. Caught with your pants down? "That's an infringement of my Article 8 rights". Been a bit naughty? "You can't report that, that's my privacy you're violating". But it's funny how quickly stars will waive any rights to their private and family life when it comes with a huge pay cheque, or if it will publicise a new film, TV programme, album etc.
Of course, this right is qualified, and in these cases needs to be balanced with the Press' Article 10 rights. If a person is happy to share their private life with the general public, then surely they should expect interest in the areas that they don't want to share as well. Self-publicity should not lead to self-censorship, should it?
This leads on to my second gripe; celebs are able to create an image about themselves that is favourable to them. They want the world to see the fruits of their success, and are happy to flaunt this. However, some are able to live behind a mask of domestic bliss that, in some cases, couldn't be further from the truth. It is perfectly possible for those with enough money to conveniently forget their moral compass; it's a world of Dorian Grays. Men and women who can behave as they please, without judgment or recourse for their actions, safe in the knowledge that if you can't pay off your indiscretions, then the courts will gag them for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment