What right, legal, moral or political do we have to discuss others behavior?

[debunker]

Well?

Why do people feel justified in getting their jollies invading the privacy and defaming a private family?

[Chinagirl]

Good question.

[stephen25000]

Well?

Why do people feel justified in getting their jollies invading the privacy and defaming a private family?

 
So what exactly are you doing ?

 >@@(*&)

[debunker]

Well?

Why do people feel justified in getting their jollies invading the privacy and defaming a private family?

 
So what exactly are you doing ?

 >@@(*&)

Opposing people discussing the affairs of others. Especially [ censored word ]s like you.

[gavdalf]

Because a child is missing and due to a massive media campaign by the family they themselves courted, they made themselves public figures. Oh yes we really need their opinion on press regulations don't we. So surely as they had plastered themselves all over the press and its news people have a right to discuss it?

But I have never commented on their behaviour, because it is not factual to this case as yet, their behaviour and movements of the night may lead to evidence that produces fact, but until then, people will always have opinions on what they did or didn't do 

[debunker]

Because a child is missing and due to a massive media campaign by the family they themselves courted, they made themselves public figures. Oh yes we really need their opinion on press regulations don't we. So surely as they had plastered themselves all over the press and its news people have a right to discuss it?

But I have never commented on their behaviour, because it is not factual to this case as yet, their behaviour and movements of the night may lead to evidence that produces fact, but until then, people will always have opinions on what they did or didn't do

Legally they remain private individuals.

It is up to the police, not pretendy internet defectives to investigate.

People are free to have opinions, but not to express them in ways that defame other people.

[gavdalf]

Im fully aware they remain Private individuals that are in the press and public eye so much

I can say I thought there child care arrangements were poor if I want, Kate wrote a book to sell worldwide for the public to buy. Was it criminal No

Don't believe Ive defamed anyone there

[debunker]

Im fully aware they remain Private individuals that are in the press and public eye so much

I can say I thought there child care arrangements were poor if I want, Kate wrote a book to sell worldwide for the public to buy. Was it criminal No

Don't believe Ive defamed anyone there

Many have.

[gavdalf]

yes but my point highlights why I have a moral right if I so wish to discuss what they themselves have put into the public domain does it not?

[debunker]

yes but my point highlights why I have a moral right if I so wish to discuss what they themselves have put into the public domain does it not?

The Law would hold that they have been forced into the public domain by circumstance and hence remain private persons- very similar to the law in the US.

[C.Edwards]

yes but my point highlights why I have a moral right if I so wish to discuss what they themselves have put into the public domain does it not?

The Law would hold that they have been forced into the public domain by circumstance and hence remain private persons- very similar to the law in the US.

Which law?  Specifically.  In other words, "cite".

[gavdalf]

I suppose writing a book to sell to the worldwide public is being forced into the public domain is it? everything in that book about them was put there by them.

lets get in serialised for a load of cash in the paper very private all these things.

But they are Private citizens if you want to use US law as a basis, just very public ones.

[debunker]

yes but my point highlights why I have a moral right if I so wish to discuss what they themselves have put into the public domain does it not?

The Law would hold that they have been forced into the public domain by circumstance and hence remain private persons- very similar to the law in the US.

Which law?  Specifically.  In other words, "cite".

Defamation Law- made by Judges in this case. People who seek publicity for themselves as public figures (Film Stars, Pop Stars, Celebrities, Politicians) have fewer rights to seek action for defamation because their own voluntary actions sought publicity for thei own ends. Victims of crime (for that is what UK Law currently holds the McCanns to be) retain full access to the courts for defamation and harassment. Same as you and me!

[C.Edwards]

Put simply, the McCanns want the right to be able to put *their* version of events across to the public whilst using solicitors to squash any dissenting voices that can clearly demonstrate their inconsistencies.

Had Tony Bennett stuck to the facts instead of going off into opinion, they wouldn't have been able to to a damn thing about it.

[C.Edwards]

Victims of crime (for that is what UK Law currently holds the McCanns to be)

Where is the proof that the McCanns are held to be victims of crime?  It's an ongoing investigation, yes?  Ask the Leicestershire Police that one if you want ;-)