Do well-known people have a right to privacy or are they public property?

This is an excellent thread Parchester and not one that I have ever given much consideration to.

From my point of view, such people in the public eye are usually wealthy and as such money or indeed personal power should not be a reason to preserve anonimity. Indeed, these very people are in such high positions of power or wealth by the grace of others and as such should me totally accountable to those 'beneath' them.

Indeed, we have the recent story of the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, allegedly swopping car speeding points with another. As a focal politician, he is totally accountable in such matters, even 'public property' to a certain extent. And the word 'privacy' doesn't even come into it.

AS they say, one rule for the rich ......

Maybe not. The challenge to the courts has been made:

In 1948 Britain helped draft the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 declares:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

They set an exmaple, and for that reason they should be held accountable for their actions, just like the rest of us. The problem is that the richer people tend to get away with taking the 'michael' more, and that's why they get caught out, and rightfully so.

Name and shame them all! They've made their beds...

I watched the John Prescott interview with Piers Morgan, brilliant interview, and John P went up my books. He came out and said I was wrong, and I suffered the consequences for my actions. If you are willing to break the law or use your status to your own gain and others downfall then you should be punished when you are found out!

However, I do think that it comes down to interest from the public in such people, if nobody was that bothered about their personal lives then the newspapers wouldn't get anyting from releasing these details. But then, would these people be the role models that they claim to be, and gain a hgih profile from?
If people set a positive example then give them the recognition they deserve, we are very quick to bring people down in this country...

I think it depends entirely on whether it's in the public interest.

To me, a footballer's sexual peccadillos (lovely word, dontcha think?) are just a bloody big yawn, but if Fred Goodwin took his eye off the ball and let his bank fail because he was ******* his secretary that's our business as taxpayers.

Oh Feline ... how I would love some sexual peccadillos ..... no big yawn for me! Do Tescos sell them?

Those that 'court the media' Parchester in my mind get their just desserts, other miscreants in the public eye also deserve to be made an example of.

If the resulting publicity is pertinent to me like corrupt politicians and or bankers then yes I'm interested as for adulterous footballers/actors etc I couldn't give a flying fig.

it seems to be that the law can be bought and that is never a good thing. if the law is not clear enough then that needs to be fixed. At the moment it only seems to be the wealthy that can do this and always to their advantage. the law must be equal and seen to be.

Another development in this debate is that a well known premier league footballer who obtained a super-injunction and was subsequently named via Twitter has received a UK court order against the American firm to provide the names and details of those who are responsible for revealing his name on their social network.

If this is a matter of privacy, then where do the members of Twitter stand? Whose right to privacy is more paramount those who take out and pay for super-injunctions or 'joe public' who exercise their right to free speech in discussing a name that has been made available via the internet?

Also is a UK Court ruling applicable to the US?

Let battle commence!

You suck satans doo daa for money and fame then you deserve all you get.

It really bugs me these people want to be in the public eye and the money and trappings and all that goes with it but then complain when they are too much in the public eye.

Nonsense

They want the cream but refuse to drink the milk if i was a celeb i would expect and put up with it for the cash!If someone offered you a million quid tomorrow but with the attendant negatives i bet 99% of the population would take it!Bleating celebs make me so tired of listening.

I presume you are talking about R.G. and his affair with that non celeb from big brother that has been all hushed up?

Sorry I have to give the initials but being a footballer im sure you will either have googled it yourself or can make a stab at it!

If the celeb's commit criminal or immoral acts then they become fair game for the press,Being famous should not make them untouchable as a lot of them think they are.

Personally, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in the doings of celebrities, but I don't see why they should be able to buy their privacy as and when it suits them.

As jajajanie said below, the law must be equal for all of us, and the rest of us couldn't possibly afford a super-injunction.

If a celebrity wants publicity then they should be prepared to have both the good and the bad publicity.

Ryan Giggs, who has built part of his persona on being a wonderful family centred man as well as a footballer, has asked the court to intervene to protect his immoral behaviour.

The judge upholding the super-injunction yesterday said "The court's duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can." Why didn't Mr. Giggs give due consideration to his family prior to commencing the 7 month affair both parties in this fiasco Giggs and Imogen Thomas, are guilty of shameful personal behaviour and yet she is trying to portray herself as the victim in all of this. Perhaps both should reflect that their selfish behaviour affects no one but the innocent Giggs family.

This is a classic example of someone having more money than sense.

In my opinion, anything that highlights the hypocrasy of our celebrity driven culture and the immoral behaviour of so called 'role models' is in the public interest!