The counter-argument might be that our purpose is not to protect our readers, especially in the face of our policy which says that this sort of privacy only applies to things not "already widely disseminated."
And before you say that approach is immoral, I would say the counter-approach can also be seen as immoral. I certainly do not wish to be protected from the information I'm seeking, and I would see people who want to do that as engaging in censorship neither asked for, wanted, nor warrented.
Jon Voight pleading for Angelina Jolie to reconcile with him, might be embarrassing to him, or her, or a general reader. But it's widely disseminated and we should be in the business of suppressing that information, acting as moral judges for the rest of the world.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
2008/6/23 WJhonson@aol.com:
Jon Voight pleading for Angelina Jolie to reconcile with him, might be embarrassing to him, or her, or a general reader. But it's widely disseminated and we should be in the business of suppressing that information, acting as moral judges for the rest of the world.
But these people have essentially sought out fame, and it's far less unreasonable that at least some details of their lives be in the public domain. They must have known that that was going to happen when they became actresses, and accepted their various roles.
When people are only victims of some mischance, then the argument is, it seems to me, and BLP agrees, that some presumption of privacy and restriction of information ought to be apply, and even if others aren't doing so.
Will Johnson