Concerning proposed new privacy laws, particularly a private right to sue for egregious and unjustifiable invasions of privacy, Richard Ackland asks a question on behalf of his fellow journalists:  How Will We Catch Scoundrels? 

To which the answer is fairly obvious: “Look in the mirror.”

As the members of the Law Reform Commission say:

“Those who are against this recommendation … have argued mainly from the premise that it would have an adverse impact on freedom of speech and investigative journalism. However, these arguments quickly move on to the potential consequences for the continued publication of celebrity tittle-tattle and paparazzi photos.”

I’m not generally a knee-jerk defender of the rich and privileged and, being unable to fake a smile convincingly for a photo, have no special empathy for thespians.  My personal stake is an ingrained dislike for obviously bullshit, self-serving and hypocritical special pleading.  Journalism’s argument here has been effectively paraphrased by Homer Simpson:

“Look, all I’m saying is, if these big stars didn’t want people going through their garbage and saying they’re gay, then they shouldn’t have tried to express themselves creatively.”

Actually who needs to Homerfy the real argument in all its glorious idiocy?  You agreed to be photographed at the premiere of your movie, QED I can, nay must, stalk you in the fruit & veg aisle and publish upskirts of your vagina. 

However, the LRC also points out that the proposed cause of action is only designed to protect celebrities insofar as they have the same rights as the rest of us:

“The focus of the commission was more on the private sphere than the mainstream media - and related to the protection of ordinary citizens rather than celebrities. “

Thus, Ackland is compelled to extend the grossly dishonest Homer argument to we commoners.  He points out that people have Facebook sites these days.  You have voluntarily published your favourite posed head-shot, together with the fact that you like gardening.  QED, you have agreed that your ex-boyfriend can … publish upskirts of your vagina.   Next time a journo offers to buy you a drink, make sure it comes straight from the bartender; they apparently struggle with the concept of “consent”.

The law and lawyers is Ackland’s specialisation, and he has previously written about how good lawyers have it in the field of professional regulation.  Stuff up the trust accounting, get caught with (but not convicted over) a small amount of mary-jane, forget to do something relating to litigation, fail to lodge your tax returns, or do any other of a myriad of things which count as professional misconduct, and you “only” have to face a panel of Supreme Court Justices.  Them judges were once lawyers, see, so when they strip you of your practicing certificate and therefore livelihood, and lay waste to years of training and hard, highly stressful work, they’re pretty obviously playing favourites.  Not like them poor journos, occasionally asked nicely to print corrections in the classified pages by the Press Council.

You don’t even have to make analogies; what’s filthy for us is fine for them.  Take Victoria’s (actual, current) anti-stalking laws.  The 3rd estate, so quick to set the sniffer dogs on the rest of us, has seen fit to include a specific exemption from the definition of stalking for

“… any body or person whose business, or whose principal business, is the publication, or arranging for the publication, of news or current affairs material.”

The journos have been trying all the bullshit they can muster since the LRC published its proposal.  That the law would have to be interpreted and applied to specific facts, for example, unlike all them other laws.  That it’s just plain impossible to tell the difference between the public interest in the exposure of a politician taking bribes, versus a media company’s commercial interest in entrappping a person into a situation where they’re being spanked by a prostitute hired by the media company, then publishing the photos.  Or a bitter ex’s interest in publishing nude photos, medical history or bank account details on some small minded person’s nasty, vengeance-themed website.

It should be remembered that journalists do claim to be a profession, the only one with privileges but no enforceable responsibilities.  For example they claim the privilege to ‘protect sources’ in criminal matters where any other private, profit-driven citizen would be required to tell the law what they know.  You may point out that judges have not recognised those claimed privileges.  Why on earth would they, given the media’s attitude towards professional responsibility?  Would it be clever to give such a weighty privilege, whereby dangerous criminals may well be protected from successful prosecution, to people of such low character that they consider it a necessary part of their job to attack Lindsay Lohan’s pubescent sister for having the temerity to grow boobs?

Lohan’s Dad wouldn’t be allowed to take to these journo scoundrels with his sabre in this day and age.  A private right to sue seems just the thing.

The scoundrels probably don’t need to worry, though.  This isn’t Italy, where the political parties own the media companies.  It’s Australia, where the media companies own the politicians.