Unexpected News: The Wachowski Sisters! Second Wachowski Sibling Comes Out As Trans.

[Lightknight]

It's certainly standard practice, whether the piece is positive or negative; papers usually need quotes and other details to publish, no matter how they represent (or misrepresent) them. What's not standard practice for a positive piece is turning up at someone's doorstep unannounced, as this man did.

But this is a tabloid, as you say. Tabloids seldom go through that kind of trouble if they have evidence. Unless their evidence was questionable or obtained in a sleazy way that is... which could be the case and then you and I could gleefully kick them (the Daily Mail) in their naughty bits together without regret. Maybe get some ice cream after and see a good movie? Some high-fiving might be called for too?

I don't believe I'm being pre-emptive. As I've said, I've read it regularly, and have never seen a positive piece on an issue like this. Not once.

I'm not saying you're wrong in suspecting this will happen. I'm just saying that the only support you have for the liklihood is anecdotal. The best information we could get would be learning the name of the reporter in question and reviewing his track record and even that may not be enough.

I'm not appealing to any authority. The moral construct I'm appealing to is simple prevention of unnecessary harm, which (in some form) is usually pretty central to any working moral philosophy.

Again, a lot of things cause harm and aren't entirely necessary and are fine for most people to see reported on. Somebody that donates to a traditional marriage bill gets their personal conservative identity (which 65% of Americans shared at the time) outed and have to resign their job and everyone cheers. No one blames the reporters on that, heck they even applaud it because it was someone whose personal identity they didn't like.

If the information is made public then it is fair game. If the information is kept private, then you have an ethics issue. That's because the role of the news is then just speeding up the dissemination of information if it's already public rather than acquiring information dishonestly and making it public. This is actually a tenet of ethics in journalism.

What "harm" is unacceptable is also highly relative. The reporter could have just as easily convinced themselves that doing this is ripping off the bandaid in service of Lily. I mean, you either remain in hiding for years and have to keep presenting contrary to your identity or BAM, you're suddenly free of worrying that you will be found out and hiding yourself. You and I may not agree with that assessment but it's a counterpoint that can be made as a significant silver lining for her.

That really shouldn't be the decision of an outside party, particularly one whose only interest in the events is monetary, and particularly particularly one which has demonstrated no interest in protecting this community.

The ideology of freedom of the press (not really a tenet in the UK, I know) would state this as their job. There is no immutable grounds upon which you are drawing this line. Only if it was not already being displayed in public would I side with you that it shouldn't be the decision of a news agency to make news about this.

The part about the possibility that some other reporter run the piece just seems like a ploy to get the piece first, to me.

Right, so you say. But what if Lily had stated that running this piece would cause her significant harm and the reporter then dropped it? She didn't say that so we won't know if that's what he would have done.

Unless one is made aware of impending harm, why should one assume that revealing the truth would cause it, especially if she was already presenting in public and around her colleagues? Everyone is different and Jenner ran with the public attention all the way to the bank. You say that they should avoid harm but reporting on this is no longer instant harm.

I don't know, but I'd guess there's a lot of public attention that comes along with it, and many people (understandably) aren't comfortable with that until they're ready.

I'm not sure that justifies a free pass from the information being distributed. Are people still bugging her sister about being trans? Caitlin got a shit-ton of news because Caitlin wanted it. That doesn't have to be the case for Lily.

We won't know for sure until we see the article, but we can make a fair guess based on precedent. The past piece- to which Lilly Wachowski refers in the snippet on the first page- was tremendously damaging, tremendously harmful. It was genuinely tragic.

And maybe that caused new policies in which they are required to visit the person first and get their permission and perspective on it first?

Again, I apologize that I am providing them any defense without the same degree of knowledge you have of them. I just try to take a neutral position on anything in the lack of information rather than jumping the gun.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Ah, Daily Mail, another company that just doesn't know what privacy means. Bunch of low-lifes.

Bit sad that Lilly had to come out before she was comfortable with doing so, but I am happy that she can be herself.

As for the Redpillers, guess they now have to search for a new name. Makes me curious how they are reacting to this.
Maybe that We Hunted The Mammoth has more on this bit but I haven't checked it in ages.

 

[Silvanus]

But this is a tabloid, as you say. Tabloids seldom go through that kind of trouble if they have evidence. Unless their evidence was questionable or obtained in a sleazy way that is... which could be the case and then you and I could gleefully kick them (the Daily Mail) in their naughty bits together without regret. Maybe get some ice cream after and see a good movie? Some high-fiving might be called for too?

This... was a very round-a-bout route to take to ask me out, Lightknight. I respect that!

As far as I know, tabloids tend to quote-mine or seek detail regardless. An article needs populating with that kind of stuff. The effort they go to isn't exhaustive by any means, but it's there. That's why we have paparazzi hiding in bushes even when they know full well what the photograph will show.

I'm not saying you're wrong in suspecting this will happen. I'm just saying that the only support you have for the liklihood is anecdotal. The best information we could get would be learning the name of the reporter in question and reviewing his track record and even that may not be enough.

That's true, I suppose, but I'd encourage you to take an independent look over their track record.

Again, a lot of things cause harm and aren't entirely necessary and are fine for most people to see reported on. Somebody that donates to a traditional marriage bill gets their personal conservative identity (which 65% of Americans shared at the time) outed and have to resign their job and everyone cheers. No one blames the reporters on that, heck they even applaud it because it was someone whose personal identity they didn't like.

One's political actions are related to the public interest, though. One's gender identity isn't. And, while political donations may have professional consequences, one's gender identity may have physical ones. There's genuine danger involved.

The ideology of freedom of the press (not really a tenet in the UK, I know) would state this as their job. There is no immutable grounds upon which you are drawing this line. Only if it was not already being displayed in public would I side with you that it shouldn't be the decision of a news agency to make news about this.

The freedom of the press is quite a venerated tenet here in the UK; so much so that when a legally-backed watchdog was suggested by the Leveson Inquiry, it was rejected, and we have no functional independent complaints commission. The line I'm drawing is not on immutable grounds, no, but that's unavoidable; it's a highly subjective issue, and should be judged case-by-case. Any line we draw will not be immutable, but a line must be drawn nonetheless.

I'm not sure that justifies a free pass from the information being distributed. Are people still bugging her sister about being trans? Caitlin got a shit-ton of news because Caitlin wanted it. That doesn't have to be the case for Lily.

The unwanted press is impossible to predict, and in many cases unavoidable. Still, it shouldn't need to be demonstrated: the probability enough should warrant restraint from the press. The free pass should be the norm when it comes to sensitive, potentially harmful articles, unless public interest is shown.

And maybe that caused new policies in which they are required to visit the person first and get their permission and perspective on it first?

Again, I apologize that I am providing them any defense without the same degree of knowledge you have of them. I just try to take a neutral position on anything in the lack of information rather than jumping the gun.

No apologies necessary, you're approaching this debate perfectly respectfully, I'd say.

It's possible, but unlikely. After the last time, there was no show of remorse from the paper or the reporter in question (Richard Littlejohn, if memory serves; I made a thread about it at the time). Had there been, I might be better inclined.

 

[Amaror]

I think what he's trying to say is "If I'm going around in public wearing a giant purple top hat, and wearing a leopard print pant suit, I shouldn't be 1: suprised, or 2: upset, that people in the media suddenly report "Happyninja42 sighted wearing a giant purple top hat and leopard print pant suit!" I'm going out in the public, where it's perfectly legal for people to photograph me when I'm out in public, so I can't really get onto them for accurately reporting something I'm putting out there in the public circle.

Actually I just had some classes on that subjects and taking and publishing pictures of you in that circumstance would still be illegal, unless
1. You're not the primary target of the picture, i.e. you just happen to be in it somewhere in the background.
2. You're at some kind of public event.
3. You're a person of public interest. Though the definition of what constitutes a person of public interest isn't incredibly clearcut.

 

[Something Amyss]

As for the Redpillers, guess they now have to search for a new name.

Keep in mind that TRP has claimed its name comes from Total Recall for quite some time now. I'm betting it coincides with Lana coming out, but I couldn't give enough of a crap to check. The only way to shatter that would be for Phillip Dick to come back from the dead and transition.

The beauty of these movements is they will always survive, being able to constantly shift the goalposts and deny reality. I suppose that's also the beauty of deriving your philosophy from something as facile as shitty popcorn flicks. Pocorn philosophy is pretty easy to discard.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Is there some legal recourse for this person who the Daily Mail threatened to out? Because to me this sounds like extortion. Oh sure, she isn't paying the Mail, but the question about other tabloids following her and the rush to the presses? Sounds like the Daily wanted what it perceived as a cash cow exclusive at this woman's expense regardless of its impact on her, and was trying to beat out perceived competition.

It would be one thing - still disgusting but a separate matter - if they had come to her and stated: 'We're running this article, do you have a comment? It drops tomorrow.' It's quite another the approach they took and I suspect part of it is to cover the shiftiness of running said article just to be the first to release the info. Luckily this person had the presence of mind and allowing circumstances to screw all of the tabloids over for her story.

I can't stand blackmailers and extortionists, the concept of them is almost rage inducing for me.

Well there are several things, one is that the Wachowski sisters are technically public figures, which due the sisters being Americans, along with the Daily Fail's Mail's American arm doing this... They'd actually have fist amendment protections due to the protections afforded to the press, especially concerning a public figure, like any celebrity. Hell they could have printed an out right lie about Lilly Wachowski, then if sued claimed it was "satire" and "used as a parody", which would allow them to dodge both charges of defamation of character and slander.

However this is the Daily Fail Mail we're talking about here. An extreme right-wing hate based shit-rag tabloid. They weren't going to use outing Lilly as trans as some sort of cash cow, the were gonna do it to assault her character, say nasty things about her, and damage her reputation. Remember the Daily Mail actually outed a transgender teacher, in a manner that caused her to lose her job, then continued to harass her until she committed suicide. In much of the extreme, "traditional", and hatefully bigoted right wing, that's an ideal outcome. They only went to interview her so that they could twist anything she said into something as personally damaging as possible. This is what shitty tabloids do.

This was neither blackmail, nor extortion, it was an attempt to get an article out to destroy someone.

OH! That explains some things. I guess I already heard about this story, but I didn't read too into it at the time.

I thought they were talking about the first sister who transitioned as coming out, which I thought was weird because I knew she already transitioned. Now I get it. They were talking about Lilly, not her sister.

Probably would have figured that out the first time I saw this story, but I was too lazy at the time to read it. ;p

Oh well, better late than never. Glad she's able to represent and be who she wishes to be. Very unfortunate that she was forced to talk about this before she wanted to though.

Yeah, she was still in the middle of preparing to come out on her own, but the "reporter" from the Daily Mail came to get statements he could twist into damaging propaganda. So Lilly's only recourse was to go another outlet and get her story published in her own words, before the scum tabloid did it first.

Why would they force her to out herself? Wouldn't it make more sense to just publish this as a rumor or something? It's not like forcing her to talk about it is going to make her pick them to be the ones with the first interview or anything. Plus, they'll be outed as right assholes. Maybe they hope that will give them more attention when they write about it?

I don't understand newspapers. :/

Well remember, this is the Daily Fail Mail we're talking about, they're not a newspaper, they're a shitty tabloid. I refer you to my response to @Namehere in this very post for the explanation on that.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I agree, as I just said, making someone feel even worse isn't going to prevent them from thinking about, attempting to, or successfully committing suicide. In fact that's probably the best way to make those things happen.

Sometimes the family is not the victim but the perpatrator. Sometimes they deserve every scrap of heartache or more than could possibly be inflicted upon them from the suicide. Some people say that "suicide is selfish" but people are often driven to suicide by the selfishness of others and its the former group that are the victims here.

Never, ever, EVER suggest that a trans, gay, bi, or etc person should do something like that, that's the best way to drive them into suicide.

Perhaps a minority group that could possibly be dismissed as "mentally ill" shouldn't subtly threaten suicide as an option when its members are not accepted. A lot of people live in poverty and it's horrible. Do you think society would look well upon a poor person who enters a bank with a gun to his head demanding money?

Suicide doesn't help anyone. It just means one less person. If being trans is a absolutely essential to who you are as a human being, then suicide isn't martyrdom. It's a self inflicted hate crime. If you're in a mental state where suicide seems like a valid option, then your judgment of everything, including how you think others are treating you, is suspect.

 

[Something Amyss]

Perhaps a minority group that could possibly be dismissed as "mentally ill" shouldn't subtly threaten suicide as an option when its members are not accepted. A lot of people live in poverty and it's horrible. Do you think society would look well upon a poor person who enters a bank with a gun to his head demanding money?

Society also views the poor as lazy scum that must have done something to deserve where they got there. Money is an indicator of success, self-sufficience, and hard work. Why would public perception be a good marker in this comparison?

Suicide doesn't help anyone.

Logically, yes. And this is the equivalent of screaming "DON'T PANIC" at someone. At best, it's not helpful. At worst, it's counter-productive.

 

[happyninja42]

I think what he's trying to say is "If I'm going around in public wearing a giant purple top hat, and wearing a leopard print pant suit, I shouldn't be 1: suprised, or 2: upset, that people in the media suddenly report "Happyninja42 sighted wearing a giant purple top hat and leopard print pant suit!" I'm going out in the public, where it's perfectly legal for people to photograph me when I'm out in public, so I can't really get onto them for accurately reporting something I'm putting out there in the public circle.

Actually I just had some classes on that subjects and taking and publishing pictures of you in that circumstance would still be illegal, unless
1. You're not the primary target of the picture, i.e. you just happen to be in it somewhere in the background.
2. You're at some kind of public event.
3. You're a person of public interest. Though the definition of what constitutes a person of public interest isn't incredibly clearcut.

Interesting, though I would think that option 3 would cover them just fine. "Person of Public Interest", unless they mean like law enforcement terms of "person of interest", would likely be anyone that is of...well, public interest. And transgender people are of particular interest these days.

So if I'm reading this correctly, based on what you said, if someone photographs me just walking down the street, and publishes it, they are acting illegally? Then how in the hell are any of the tabloid publications able to get anything published about the various celebrities in the world? We are inundated with photos of "X Celebrity Walking on Sidewalk Wearing This!" or "X Celebrity Scene Making out With This Person Not Their SO!". Those seem to be, by what you are saying, to be illegal, and yet they seem to do them all the time.

Now I get the "putting a person at risk" concept, but you didn't specify that in your 3 options. So I'm not sure how that would apply in this. Sure, if doing it puts the person at risk, that sucks, but that's not necessarily the same as it being illegal. At least based on the things you listed. Is that a comprehensive list of all the scenarios? Because if it is, then frankly every rag out there is breaking the law left and right, and should be sued into bankruptcy. But from the admittedly limited data on the subject, I always understood that if you are out in public, you can't prevent people from photographing you if you are in a public place. They have the right to take photos of whatever, as there is no invasion of privacy in that type scenario. Perhaps that's not actually the legal rule, but it's what I've always heard. Hence my stance of "if you're out in public, don't be surprised if someone notices you and sends that information out."

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Perhaps a minority group that could possibly be dismissed as "mentally ill" shouldn't subtly threaten suicide as an option when its members are not accepted. A lot of people live in poverty and it's horrible. Do you think society would look well upon a poor person who enters a bank with a gun to his head demanding money?

That's about one of the worst attempts at making a comparison I've ever seen. Especially since most trans people live in poverty. Still that's not a comparison worth making in any sense of the word. Also anyone who dismisses trans and gay/bi/ace folk as "mentally ill" is either not a mental health professional of any kind, or an abject quack who needs their license to practice medicine revoked.

Suicide doesn't help anyone. It just means one less person. If being trans is a absolutely essential to who you are as a human being, then suicide isn't martyrdom. It's a self inflicted hate crime. If you're in a mental state where suicide seems like a valid option, then your judgment of everything, including how you think others are treating you, is suspect.

When somebody commits suicide, it's not about helping anyone, it's not about being a martyr, it's not even really about hurting friends and family, and it's not even about being unaccepted by society. It's about making unending misery, fear, and pain stop, it's about escaping a situation of pain, terror, and depression the only way the suicidal person sees possible. Also calling peoples judgment into question, calling a trans suicide a self inflicted hate crime... You know what, that shows a shocking lack of empathy from someone whose claimed to have battled suicidal thoughts and been personally effected by a suicide.

I've never seriously considered suicide, but one of my cousins did, and she succeeded in taking her own life. She wasn't even trans. Her husband divorced her and took custody of their child, along with her not having visitation rights. She lost her home in this process. She started drinking heavily at this point, then because of developing an alcohol problem, she lost her job. She was in her late 30s at this point, with no options, no future, and really burned bridges with her blood family well enough she had no support. She saw her life as being over, she saw her situation as hopeless, so she put her gun in her own mouth and she ended her life. I didn't like her, she was a self centered horrible person, the world is honestly a better place with her gone. I still loved her as family. I'm also sad she got to that point. Still I'm not going to condemn her for making that choice, especially because I can understand how awful and hopeless she felt.

The idea still at this point is to prevent people from feeling the need to commit suicide. Laying a guilt trip on people who feel worthless and miserable does not accomplish this goal.

Finally you talk about people thinking people are treating them some way because of something and that's suspect because the person is suicidal... When it comes to GSM folk, as in trans and gay folk... GSM people are not suicidal before being physically and mentally abused, thrown out of their homes, discriminated against, and thrown under the bus by their own freaking fiends and families. Blaming the victims who are driven into taking their own lives, while letting the people who contributed to that end skate, that's victim blaming. Which again shows a shocking lack of empathy.

 

[Lightknight]

But this is a tabloid, as you say. Tabloids seldom go through that kind of trouble if they have evidence. Unless their evidence was questionable or obtained in a sleazy way that is... which could be the case and then you and I could gleefully kick them (the Daily Mail) in their naughty bits together without regret. Maybe get some ice cream after and see a good movie? Some high-fiving might be called for too?

This... was a very round-a-bout route to take to ask me out, Lightknight. I respect that!

The key is to find mutually desirable activities so both parties have something to look forward to. A good naughty-bits kicking party against ne'er-do-wells is fun for everyone (except them, of course).

As far as I know, tabloids tend to quote-mine or seek detail regardless. An article needs populating with that kind of stuff. The effort they go to isn't exhaustive by any means, but it's there. That's why we have paparazzi hiding in bushes even when they know full well what the photograph will show.

Forgive me but the kind of tabloids I think of are just garbage peddlers that don't actually do any investigative reporting on their own? Maybe the Daily Mail really is something above tabloid but below mainstream legitimate journalism?

That's true, I suppose, but I'd encourage you to take an independent look over their track record.

The only track record that would matter to me is the journalist in question. Papers pick up new people all the time and whether they stay or go they should not be held responsible (automatically) for the papers' past indiscretions.

One's political actions are related to the public interest, though. One's gender identity isn't. And, while political donations may have professional consequences, one's gender identity may have physical ones. There's genuine danger involved.

So then you are providing a qualification in which harm really isn't relevant because it is "in the public interest"? I seriously doubt that how a person votes (individually) or what causes they support are truly in the public interest unless they're throwing large numbers at it. Don't you consider it somewhat dangerous rhetoric to trivialize the social and financial forms of harm in pursuit of justifying causing harm to some but not others? I'd consider a far more internally consistent philosophy to be against unnecessary harm of all rather than just some.

There's potential danger in anything involving one's identity and affiliations. If Lily was presenting in public, was she not already taking on said danger? The idea is that if it was already happening in public then the subject is already assuming the risks/responsibility. Again, that's the point of if it is done in public then it is fair game to report. Can things go wrong? Yes. But society has changed a great deal and most of the ignorant assholes that would cause her harm are too dumb to read any paper and would likely only attack if she were presenting (poorly), not just because they read something some time. At least that's how things seem to go, not someone planning to go somewhere and do someone harm just because they heard about them on the news or whatever.

The unwanted press is impossible to predict, and in many cases unavoidable. Still, it shouldn't need to be demonstrated: the probability enough should warrant restraint from the press. The free pass should be the norm when it comes to sensitive, potentially harmful articles, unless public interest is shown.

Again, if the person is a public figure and they have made their situation known in public I just think they wave that free pass.

We still don't know how these schmucks obtained the information though. The whole conversation could be for naught if we find that out.

No apologies necessary, you're approaching this debate perfectly respectfully, I'd say.

Thank you, and thank you for talking this through with me too!

It's possible, but unlikely. After the last time, there was no show of remorse from the paper or the reporter in question (Richard Littlejohn, if memory serves; I made a thread about it at the time). Had there been, I might be better inclined.

It's a bit more tricky of a situation than that, to admit fault could open them up to liability. If they consulted a lawyer they would have advised them to not talk about it and if they had to to not admit guilt which could be used against them later.

But sure, they could be total social bottom feeders. I don't know if you feel like we could benefit from continued discourse, it seems like both our stances have been made but I don't want to waste your time if you've begun to find this tedious. I have appreciated your effort and input throughout.

 

[Lightknight]

Perhaps a minority group that could possibly be dismissed as "mentally ill" shouldn't subtly threaten suicide as an option when its members are not accepted. A lot of people live in poverty and it's horrible. Do you think society would look well upon a poor person who enters a bank with a gun to his head demanding money?

They aren't threatening to commit suicide in response. People are explaining that this is the result of society shunning people. A person comes out as trans and what do you think happens? Their friends judge them and disappear. Their family tries to discard them even if only temporarily. This is a touchy subject for a lot of people and the person ends up being left with significantly fewer ties if any.

Suicide is the natural result of the social shunning, discriminatory hiring practices and the depression their body dysphoria already naturally causes.

Now, we can't really control their dysphoria. But we can encourage public acceptance of them as people and condemn discriminatory hiring practices. Even if you can't accept their desire to present as the opposite sex, you should at least be able to recognize that they aren't doing any harm to anyone else and as such just let it happen. Science has no better option to respond to the condition than what they're currently doing and even if they could flip a switch on gender identity one still has to battle with the idea of changing your internal self instead of just your external body.

Suicide doesn't help anyone.

While this logic is cute and sunny and all that, it isn't technically true. It's just that the only people left afterwards are the people it hurt. You can legitimately argue that it is a selfish act and one for which there are almost always better alternatives. But at ending suffering it is undeniably effective. As Something Amyss said, this rhetoric does not help a person who just wants the suffering to stop and knows damn well that this would do it. It's a hard and unfortunate truth.

 

[Amaror]

Interesting, though I would think that option 3 would cover them just fine. "Person of Public Interest", unless they mean like law enforcement terms of "person of interest", would likely be anyone that is of...well, public interest. And transgender people are of particular interest these days.

So if I'm reading this correctly, based on what you said, if someone photographs me just walking down the street, and publishes it, they are acting illegally? Then how in the hell are any of the tabloid publications able to get anything published about the various celebrities in the world? We are inundated with photos of "X Celebrity Walking on Sidewalk Wearing This!" or "X Celebrity Scene Making out With This Person Not Their SO!". Those seem to be, by what you are saying, to be illegal, and yet they seem to do them all the time.

Now I get the "putting a person at risk" concept, but you didn't specify that in your 3 options. So I'm not sure how that would apply in this. Sure, if doing it puts the person at risk, that sucks, but that's not necessarily the same as it being illegal. At least based on the things you listed. Is that a comprehensive list of all the scenarios? Because if it is, then frankly every rag out there is breaking the law left and right, and should be sued into bankruptcy. But from the admittedly limited data on the subject, I always understood that if you are out in public, you can't prevent people from photographing you if you are in a public place. They have the right to take photos of whatever, as there is no invasion of privacy in that type scenario. Perhaps that's not actually the legal rule, but it's what I've always heard. Hence my stance of "if you're out in public, don't be surprised if someone notices you and sends that information out."

Were did I say anything about "putting a person at risk"? It's not about putting anyone at risks. You have the right to your likeness. That means that any picture that's mainly of yourself belongs to you, not the person shooting it. So publishing it without your consent is illegal. Think of it as copyright. They are copying your likeness onto a picture. But it's still your face and body, so it still belongs to you.
Tabloids get away with celebrity pictures, because celebrities constitute as persons of public interest and thus loose the right to their likeness somewhat.
And, as I said, if you just happen to be in the picture somewhere in the background, the picture also doesn't belong to you, because that would be a legal nightmare.
And, yeah, the sisters, I can't remember the name right now, would constitute as persons of public interest. Pretty much any somewhat famous person is a person of public interest.
And also note that It's only infringing on your right if it's published publically. Really publically. If a friend of yours took a photo of you and sent it to another friend of his without your consent, that wouldn't be illegal, since it's still only available in a closed group. If he posts it on the internet without any access restrictions it would be illegal.
However he could also post it on the internet and not have it be illegal by simply restricting the access to it. It doesn't matter how large the group of people is that has access to the picture, as long as it's restricted in any way it's not published publicly.

I don't promise that my list is complete, though. The course I took was mainly about the basic law regulations you need to know as a computer scientist. There could and likely are a lot of intricaties in the law that it didn't cover.

 

[Silvanus]

Forgive me but the kind of tabloids I think of are just garbage peddlers that don't actually do any investigative reporting on their own? Maybe the Daily Mail really is something above tabloid but below mainstream legitimate journalism?

Sort of. We have the 'pure' tabloids like The Sun, The Daily Star, and The Mirror; ones which make no effort to hide sensationalism, and fill themselves with celebrity gossip and rubbish like that. The Daily Mail isn't quite like that, and does do investigative journalism, though it's often of the muck-racking kind. Wiki describes it as "middle-market"; I would describe it as having pretences in that direction.

So then you are providing a qualification in which harm really isn't relevant because it is "in the public interest"? I seriously doubt that how a person votes (individually) or what causes they support are truly in the public interest unless they're throwing large numbers at it. Don't you consider it somewhat dangerous rhetoric to trivialize the social and financial forms of harm in pursuit of justifying causing harm to some but not others? I'd consider a far more internally consistent philosophy to be against unnecessary harm of all rather than just some.

Professional consequences are really indivisible from professional actions. What actions one takes (politically or professionally) must have consequences if people are to be accountable, and it's pretty fundamental to a free market that we may choose to whom our money goes. It's understandable and right that we need not support somebody we do not wish to.

There's potential danger in anything involving one's identity and affiliations. If Lily was presenting in public, was she not already taking on said danger? The idea is that if it was already happening in public then the subject is already assuming the risks/responsibility. Again, that's the point of if it is done in public then it is fair game to report. Can things go wrong? Yes. But society has changed a great deal and most of the ignorant assholes that would cause her harm are too dumb to read any paper and would likely only attack if she were presenting (poorly), not just because they read something some time. At least that's how things seem to go, not someone planning to go somewhere and do someone harm just because they heard about them on the news or whatever.

That's difficult to judge-- people may recognise her (in the street, even) after media attention, whereas they wouldn't have done before.

There's more than one public sphere. One's workplace is one thing; the country another, and both involve uniquely different risks and threats. You may (rightly) say that if you take on one, you risk the other, but the risk of that is low without media interference.

It's a bit more tricky of a situation than that, to admit fault could open them up to liability. If they consulted a lawyer they would have advised them to not talk about it and if they had to to not admit guilt which could be used against them later.

But sure, they could be total social bottom feeders. I don't know if you feel like we could benefit from continued discourse, it seems like both our stances have been made but I don't want to waste your time if you've begun to find this tedious. I have appreciated your effort and input throughout.

I've appreciated yours, too. I haven't found it tedious, but I do think we've probably put across our thoughts as well as we're going to at this point.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well the red pill wasn't in "We can remember it for you wholesale", it was a product of Paul Verhoven's adaptation. He's still alive afaik, so we've still got a shot for it to happen.

You know, I actually considered looking that up because I barely remember the original story. Probably should have run with that.

Anyway, good to know there's still hope!

 

[happyninja42]

snip

Were did I say anything about "putting a person at risk"? It's not about putting anyone at risks.

I didn't say you did, but multiple other people in this discussion have brought up the point of "if publishing it puts the person at risk of harm, it's unethical". I was pointing out that your 3 points didn't include that as a reason for it to be illegal to publish pictures of someone. And while it might be unethical to risk someone's life like that, that doesn't mean it's illegal.

You have the right to your likeness. That means that any picture that's mainly of yourself belongs to you, not the person shooting it. So publishing it without your consent is illegal. Think of it as copyright. They are copying your likeness onto a picture. But it's still your face and body, so it still belongs to you.
Tabloids get away with celebrity pictures, because celebrities constitute as persons of public interest and thus loose the right to their likeness somewhat.
And, as I said, if you just happen to be in the picture somewhere in the background, the picture also doesn't belong to you, because that would be a legal nightmare.
And, yeah, the sisters, I can't remember the name right now, would constitute as persons of public interest. Pretty much any somewhat famous person is a person of public interest.
And also note that It's only infringing on your right if it's published publically. Really publically. If a friend of yours took a photo of you and sent it to another friend of his without your consent, that wouldn't be illegal, since it's still only available in a closed group. If he posts it on the internet without any access restrictions it would be illegal.
However he could also post it on the internet and not have it be illegal by simply restricting the access to it. It doesn't matter how large the group of people is that has access to the picture, as long as it's restricted in any way it's not published publicly.

I don't promise that my list is complete, though. The course I took was mainly about the basic law regulations you need to know as a computer scientist. There could and likely are a lot of intricaties in the law that it didn't cover.

And that's what I was trying to point out with this. I would like to see if it actually is illegal, or just skeezy. Because based on what I've seen in this article, the tabloid guy hasn't done anything wrong. So while we might not like what he did, we can't really get onto him for doing it. Assuming it's pictures of her going around town as a woman. it's a messy situation sure.

 

[Silvanus]

And that's what I was trying to point out with this. I would like to see if it actually is illegal, or just skeezy. Because based on what I've seen in this article, the tabloid guy hasn't done anything wrong. So while we might not like what he did, we can't really get onto him for doing it. Assuming it's pictures of her going around town as a woman. it's a messy situation sure.

The only existing mechanism for press oversight in the UK is the Independent Press Standards Organisation [https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/index.html], which has no legal muscle, and functions only with the sufferance of the newspapers themselves. This is the only authority to which press complaints can go, and the papers are not beholden to it.

In effect, using legality as a bar is really using no bar at all. The papers may print demonstrable slander, but even if it is against the law, there is no legal body in place to uphold the complaint with legal backing. I wish I was joking.

 

[MrFalconfly]

If you're in a mental state where suicide seems like a valid option, then your judgment of everything, including how you think others are treating you, is suspect.

Really? How do you think they get to that point in the first place? Do you think magical elves into their bedroom while they were sleeping and covered them with depression-causing glitter? People get to this point because assholes are being assholes to them. When these assholes are your coworkers, your neighbours, your friends and your family it wears down on you. Its not complicated. Nobody just becomes suicidal for no reason.

He has a point though.

We're talking about people who's in a mental state where they're considering permanent (that is irreversible) solutions for temporary problems (problems which some times can be solved by having a chat with a friend). At that point everything indicates that they should be kept away from any kind of dangerous implement.

But I admit that I generally look down at people who commit suicide, because generally it's a selfish act, and as previously mentioned, it's an irreversible pseudo-solution to a temporary problem.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

If you're in a mental state where suicide seems like a valid option, then your judgment of everything, including how you think others are treating you, is suspect.

Really? How do you think they get to that point in the first place? Do you think magical elves into their bedroom while they were sleeping and covered them with depression-causing glitter? People get to this point because assholes are being assholes to them. When these assholes are your coworkers, your neighbours, your friends and your family it wears down on you. Its not complicated. Nobody just becomes suicidal for no reason.

He has a point though.

We're talking about people who's in a mental state where they're considering permanent (that is irreversible) solutions for temporary problems (problems which some times can be solved by having a chat with a friend). At that point everything indicates that they should be kept away from any kind of dangerous implement.

But I admit that I generally look down at people who commit suicide, because generally it's a selfish act, and as previously mentioned, it's an irreversible pseudo-solution to a temporary problem.

While suicide is a selfish act, what leads to it are a series of selfish, if not outright hateful acts committed by others. This is especially true when it relates to GSM/LGBTQIA+ folk, where we tend to lose friends, get disowned, get denied medical help, employment, and housing after we come out. There's two sides to every story, one person making a foolish and selfish choice doesn't erase all the foolish and selfish choices made by others that lead to that end.

 

[MrFalconfly]

If you're in a mental state where suicide seems like a valid option, then your judgment of everything, including how you think others are treating you, is suspect.

Really? How do you think they get to that point in the first place? Do you think magical elves into their bedroom while they were sleeping and covered them with depression-causing glitter? People get to this point because assholes are being assholes to them. When these assholes are your coworkers, your neighbours, your friends and your family it wears down on you. Its not complicated. Nobody just becomes suicidal for no reason.

He has a point though.

We're talking about people who's in a mental state where they're considering permanent (that is irreversible) solutions for temporary problems (problems which some times can be solved by having a chat with a friend). At that point everything indicates that they should be kept away from any kind of dangerous implement.

But I admit that I generally look down at people who commit suicide, because generally it's a selfish act, and as previously mentioned, it's an irreversible pseudo-solution to a temporary problem.

While suicide is a selfish act, what leads to it are a series of selfish, if not outright hateful acts committed by others. This is especially true when it relates to GSM/LGBTQIA+ folk, where we tend to lose friends, get disowned, get denied medical help, employment, and housing after we come out. There's two sides to every story, one person making a foolish and selfish choice doesn't erase all the foolish and selfish choices made by others that lead to that end.

And I'm not saying that those people aren't arseholes.

In my experience however, people who commit suicide forget about their friends (that is, their true friends, not the pricks who make their life hell and are mislabelled friends).

For every suicide I see this.


Heartbroken mates whose life just took a turn towards Satan's wine-cellar.

Innocent people who would've like nothing more than to help them, being left feeling "why didn't I see this? Why didn't I stop this? I'm at fault, it's my fault that they're dead".