On Wed, 7 May 2008 20:59:13 +0100, Les Invalides
wrote:
>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.
It does not "collapse" in the slightest, since he never suggested for
one moment they might have any expectation in that sense.
>
>Perhaps the judge is deliberately using the word "expect" in two
>different senses here.
No, you are.
> 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.
>
there is not the slightest sign in the judgment that he is using it in
anything other than the first sense.
You are the one who has introduced the "second sense".
>
>>
>>"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.
In what way is complete accuracy "dishonest"?
Just because you don't like it?
The photographer didn't just happen across the family and take a
photograph.
He sat in a car where he knew they were likely to pass, with a
long-lensed camera just waiting for the chance to photograph the
family.
If you think that is not "targeting", then you have a very weird
definition of the word.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |