Mike Ross posted
>Interesting one this, and at odds with what one might expect... I can see this
>being appealed further.
>
>From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7387490.stm
>
>"Harry Potter author JK Rowling has won a legal battle to ban publication of
>long-lens photographs taken of her son when he was 18 months old.
>
>The author claimed the boy's right to privacy had been infringed after
>a picture
>of him was published in 2004."
>
>"We are immensely grateful to the court for giving our children protection from
>covert, unauthorised photography; this ruling will make an immediate and
>material difference to their lives."
>
>The agency photo - taken in November 2004 - showed Ms Rowling pushing
>David in a
>buggy on a street in Edinburgh.
>
>Judge Sir Anthony Clarke said: "If a child of parents who are not in the public
>eye could reasonably expect not to have photographs of him published in the
>media, so too should the child of a famous parent.
Well there seems to be the fallacy right there. In fact, a child of
parents who are not in the public eye can *not* reasonably expect not to
have photographs of him published in the media. Not in the sense of
being able to prevent it, anyway. Therefore the judge's entire argument
collapses.
Perhaps the judge is deliberately using the word "expect" in two
different senses here. One to mean "think [something] will not happen"
and in the other to mean "think he has the right to prevent [something]
happening", with the word being used in one sense in one part of the
argument and in the other quite distinct sense in the other part, so as
to arrive at the conclusion he wants. Known from antiquity as the
"fallacy of equivocation". If that is what is happening the judge should
be instantly dismissed.
>
>"In our opinion, it is at least arguable that a child of 'ordinary' parents
>could reasonably expect that the press would not target him and publish
>photographs of him."
And there the judge has smuggled in the word "target". He is clearly
being dishonest.
>
>Now I think I'm correct in saying this is a new principle - a photograph taken
>on a public street can't be published because.... well I'm not really
>clear, the
>judge just waffles about 'reasonable expectations'. And sets different
>standards
>for children. Not impressed.
--
Les Invalides |