On Thu, 08 May 2008 17:59:19 -0400, Mike Ross
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 22:15:36 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>Is that of any significance, legally? What would be the position of, say, a fan
>who 'just happened' across the family, took a photo, and published it on their
>blog?
No, I don't think it is of any significance, legally.
But it still wasn't in any way "dishonest" of the judge to use the
word.
>
>I don't see any legal significance to such terms as 'long lens', 'targetting',
>or 'clandestine'. In fact all of the above would tend to *reduce* the intrusion,
>as the 'victims' were clearly unaware a photograph had been taken until it was
>published.
>
No, they increase the offence, since it is the publication that causes
the offence, and having no advance idea that the publication is likely
can only make it worse when it happens.
>I didn't like the Campbell judgement, and I like this one even less; they both
>seem wrong to me. It smacks of both new 'rights' being invented and significant
>other rights being abridged, without any legislative process.
It does.
I can understand *what* the judges and the Lords have done, but I
don't understand *why* they felt it necessary.
But the whole of our common law has evolved "without any legislative
process", so that aspect does not invalidate it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
DEFINE: De ting you get for breaking de law.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |