Chi editor Alfonso Signorini told Sky News that he did nothing illegal, according to The Guardian.I suppose if one took this as a way of honoring a fertility goddess...
"I published them with a conviction that they are pictures of a modern contemporary duchess," he told Sky News, which said that off-camera Signorini had described her as "resembling a Greek goddess".
...but no. She is not a goddess, even if she might resemble one. She is a lady, and a good and true lady to her husband by all accounts. The temptation is understandable, but that is just why we have the prayer that contains the line, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
It's an odd thing to say that something like blasphemy against a woman can lead me to places that actual blasphemy against God cannot, but I find it is the case. Perhaps I stand convinced that "The Lord is a man of war," and therefore that he needs no defense. The Duchess is far richer and more powerful than I am or hope to be, but she is not all powerful; and a man ought to defend the right, as well as he can.
Perhaps we have been wrong about this after all. There may be limits to speech that we ought to respect, and enforce. Having made that admission, perhaps we ought to rethink the whole matter, and be sure how far we are certain of our ground.
21 comments:
This isn't free speech, it is invasion of privacy. And, this lady comes from a country where the wind and rain may enter a man's house, but the ruler can't.
It seems to me that even a duchess is entitled to a little privacy.
Valerie
I think part of the confusion is in where the responsibility lies.
There are limits to free speech. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides them. We are enjoined to help each other, which must (or at least should) include respect for each other. The same inalienable rights that are our endowment, and of which our social compact acknowledges an illustrative subset, also carry with them inalienable duties--to help the next man to enjoy his rights.
Thus, in the present context, it's wrong to casually blaspheme, or otherwise to cavalierly give offense. But these are individual obligations, and they cannot be divorced from us as individuals and surrendered to government to satisfy for us. The most we can do here is to hire government to help satisfy our own.
And this we've done. In broad strokes, we've had government outlaw, in some sense, slander, to ban shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, to proscribe lying on a solemnly concluded contract.
Beyond that, legitimate government cannot go. It cannot itself outlaw insult or blasphemy (else, for instance, how do we get Christianity or Islam--these were blasphemes on the then existing religions)? It cannot send the top military (!) man to "encourage" a private citizen not to speak in certain ways. It cannot apologize to murderers for their victims' having provoked the murder.
The limits are ours as individuals to set and apply, and no one else's. And the limits are quite clear to us as individuals, especially with the help of our local communities for enforcement. Or should be; today we need better education, which in addition to the traditional basics of the three Rs, must include civics and citizenship and what it is that is American culture. Taught unashamedly--taught actively proudly.
Eric Hines
With regard to the Duchess, we're seeing an utter lack of respect for inalienable rights, and the primacy of personal ego, both rampant in Europe.
Where there is no respect for others, there can be no self respect. She's a beautiful woman, and I want to see her naked. Therefore, I not only deserve to be able to, I get to make sure everyone else gets to, too.
Thb-b-b-b-b-t
As a practical matter, I don't know what recourse the Royals have. I don't know the Napoleonic code that well (my stereotyped remembrance of it is its shameful treatment of women, who are only second class citizens) or Italian law. It's illegal to publish such imagery of the Royals in Great Britain; I don't know whether it is in France and Italy. Wrt Ireland, there may be recourse.
It certainly is shameful behavior by the...paparazzi and the "publishers." It's not lost on me, though, that the owner of the two mags is Silvio Berlusconi.
Eric Hines
"I think part of the confusion is in where the responsibility lies.
There are limits to free speech. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides them."
etc.
That pretty much covers the matter for me.
Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides them.
What, though, of those acting outside of that heritage? Or acting against it? If the limits on them are "no limits," then we're just outsourcing the evil.
All of it, not just part. Also,
The same inalienable rights that are our endowment, and of which our social compact acknowledges an illustrative subset, also carry with them inalienable duties--to help the next man to enjoy his rights.
Eric Hines
I'm not sure about this part either:
Beyond that, legitimate government cannot go.
Why not? It's not slander to post photos of a nude woman you happened to take without her knowledge; she really was nude at that time, so it's truthful and the truth is no slander. Yet surely a wrong has been done; a sort of invasion, as Valerie puts it.
It certainly was slander to post photoshopped photos of Ms. Cupp, but we've apparently decided even that is defensible as satire. The law believes it cannot stop this; but I see no reason why it should not be possible to stop it with the law.
It would be one thing to make a slanderous photoshop for your own private enjoyment (or to secretly collect nude photos of a woman without her knowledge -- does not that phrasing, though, suggest just how wrong this must be?). Publishing such a photo, on the internet or elsewhere, is a public act that has consequences for the woman. She has some right, I would think, to legal protections.
But...but.... FREEDOM!!!! :p
"It's not slander to post photos of a nude woman you happened to take without her knowledge;"
I would think it would be, or ought to be. Apparently my ideas of slander and what protections the law ought to cover is, ah, antiquated.
Exercising one's option via the Code Duello once kept those with the mouth of a lion and the ass of a chihuahua at seething silently in their dark corners. No more.
Shunning misbehaving fools, not to mention short stints sequestered in the public square stocks used to work. Then we became more enlightened.
As modern enlightened people, we knew we should treat everyone with respect no matter their behavior. Punishment was deemed to be antithetical to an enlighten people so we sought to reform the incorrigibles with a firm but gently stroking hand, over and over again.
Of late, beginning somewhere on or about the boomer generation, we've raised generations who mock decency, courtesy, respect, and naturally, being shunned for bad behavior by ratcheting up their obnoxious behavior du jour.
At the least elders and parents can try to teach upcoming generations of self-restraint, respect for others, and the framework of the J/C creed. Even so, the gub'ment schools and society at large will exert influence on young minds.
The world has changed for better or worse, you make the call.
Post posting proofreading reveals my sloppy onthefly edits as the rant developed left a few marks in the post.
If translation from Bubbarant to English is needed, I'll be happy to provide...
Beyond that, legitimate government cannot go.
Why not? It's not slander to post photos of a nude woman you happened to take without her knowledge; she really was nude at that time, so it's truthful and the truth is no slander. Yet surely a wrong has been done; a sort of invasion....
Well, if you want to talk about invasion of privacy instead of free speech, the OP subject, we certainly can. It'll likely be a short conversation, though, as you'll get little disagreement from me, at least in the Duchess' case.
Eric Hines
Worse, I think, Mr. Hun.
Well, if you want to talk about invasion of privacy instead of free speech...
I want to talk about both. Secretly taking nude photos of a woman may be wrong (apparently the French courts think it might be, to judge from their actions today); but it strikes me that there is a separate wrong involved in publishing those pictures.
In other words it's not a case of a wrong of invasion, alongside an unproblematic exercise of a right of free speech; both the initial taking of the photos and the publication of them are wrong. There are two wrongs here.
In the case of Ms. Cupp, making the photoshop might not even be wrong insofar as it was done purely privately; the original photo was made with her consent and is in the public domain. If the Hustler guy had made such a thing in private for his own private enjoyment, well, I could see an argument that this shouldn't be viewed as a legal offense against her. But publishing the photo doesn't strike me as legitimate satire, but as a genuine harm to her.
In both cases the publication is a harm, regardless of whether the creation of the offensive image was a harm (and also separate from any harm that may have been done with the creation of the image).
There are limits to speech that we ought to enforce. The limits are those of honor, and the enforcement mechanism is that of the opprobrium of decent society. Someone who makes a living taking, editing or publishing such photographs should be shunned; as should people who provide the audience for them. Prostitution and pornography is more honorable.
It has long been my contention that if people want to know who killed Princess Diana, they should look in the mirror and ask themselves "Did you ever buy a magazine or newspaper or watch or listen to a news report whose basis was something embarrassing to her?" If the answer is "Yes", then you are looking at an accessory to her death.
If Prince Harry looks this man up, ties him to a lamppost in the middle of Piccadilly Circus and horsewhips him, I'll be glad to stand by and hold his coat to keep it from getting mussed.
I do wonder if his position as a Royal would prevent him from being prosecuted for it.
Secretly taking nude photos of a woman may be wrong...but it strikes me that there is a separate wrong involved in publishing those pictures.
I think an additional wrong, rather than separate. This strikes me as of a piece with receiving stolen goods with a view toward profiting from the receipt. The lady's privacy was invaded, and the publication was an additional profit from that invasion.
However, in American jurisprudence, the publication of ill-gotten goods is a legitimate exercise of free speech, as the the Ellsberg case with the Pentagon Papers indicates.
But publishing the photo doesn't strike me as legitimate satire, but as a genuine harm to [Cupp].
Satire often is uncomfortable, and sometimes we even approve of the actual harm. Moreover, others might disagree with you as to whether this was satire and so ought to be protected as free speech.
These two grey areas--I think the courts erred vis-a-vis Ellsberg, and I agree with you vis-a-vis Cupp--though, I think demonstrate that we cannot offload our personal duties onto government to satisfy for us; we can only hire government to help us satisfy our own. Government cannot write a law that draws a clear line in that gray area that is morally satisfactory, much less legally so; too many exceptions would have to be carved out, too many cases enumerated, and too many additional exceptions carved from those cases enumerated. In short order, we'd have a Byzantine legal system that no one could understand, and which enforceability would depend too much on who could afford the best lawyers. Sort of like what we have today.
We have to satisfy those duties ourselves. Like Ron suggests above, who murdered [sic] Princess Diana? All of us who became part of the market in the fiscally enriching imagery of her--including for imagery taken against her will.
And if the Prince wants to exercise a measure of punishment on the paparazzo--or on the editor, or the magazines' owner, or all of the above--I'll gladly second him, also; travel costs on me. Or in today's world, if the Duchess wishes to act in her own right, I'll gladly hold her...shawl? parasol?...while she does so.
Eric Hines
On the other hand, it's...good...to know we're not alone in blaming the victim for so crassly interfering with her attacker.
Eric Hines
Or in today's world, if the Duchess wishes to act in her own right, I'll gladly hold her...shawl? parasol?...while she does so.
What if she would prefer to do it in court, instead of on the field of honor?
"What if she would prefer to do it in court, instead of on the field of honor?"
Ladies ought to have that option.
I'd prefer a world where we leave the wall to wall negotiating, both overt and covert, to the knuckle-draggers.
What if she would prefer to do it in court, instead of on the field of honor?
Then, with all my vasty knowledge of English law, I'll sit second at her table in court.
Or sit in the front row of the peanut gallery, offering my moral support.
Though I suggest that field of honor is a non sequitur regarding these...jackwagons.
Eric Hines
However, in American jurisprudence, the publication of ill-gotten goods is a legitimate exercise of free speech, as the the Ellsberg case with the Pentagon Papers indicates.
This, to me, is the crux of the matter. If the photos are obtained legally, I believe that regardless of how distasteful it may be, it is not the role of government to punish the cretins. BUT, if the photos were illegally obtained (as these may have been) then it should be considered fruit of the poisoned tree, and considered illegal to publish.
I've long held that publishing classified information which was illegally obtained should be considered espionage, and punishable under Federal law. When I discovered that it could not be, I was livid. If it was illegal for you to obtain it, it should be illegal to distribute it. And damn the court that decided otherwise. No public interest is served, and much ill comes from that one decision.
I will also add my two cents that I believe we've lost something that the actual individuals harmed in this case (the Duke and Duchess) are prohibited from seeking retribution on their own behalf. Given that it should not be (at least in this country, I certainly can't speak for others) the roll of the government to redress otherwise legal insults, there ought to be a legal means for individuals to punish scoundrels like this.
I might agree with your tenor, but I greatly fear allowing us to believe the government, through law, can give us justice. Justice is the Lord's to give, and we can only do our best to work toward that, and the Founding Fathers did right to connect the essential rights to God and not man. To keep with that, we cannot exercise these in the specific in ways we might think right, because we know there are others who think differently. What when they come to power will they deem appropriate and just? I think here of the Voltaire quote: "If you want to know who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." If we can bring enough of our society to see the light of justice as granted us by God, then perhaps we can come to more agreement of specific ways to enforce these, but history says that's highly unlikely to happen in this realm.
Post a Comment