I think I've lost weight. Goddess knows how since I eat like a pig, but my pants are loose. This may mean I need new pants.
Does "privacy" have a completely different meaning in American from what it means in English? I'm confused by recent discussions invoking "privacy" as an argument against RPF. I can think of a lot of arguments against RPF, but that isn't one that seems logical to me. If it's made up, it's not private, is it?
I may have started a new SPN fic last night. Naughty, since I haven't finished my Big Bang yet.
People seem to consider RPF invading of someone's privacy, yeah. Like we REALLY know what's going on inside closed doors. I think it's more that it's based on a real person/people and hits a bit close to home for some. It's weird. I can do RPF more easily about some than others.
Well...I'm not a supporter of RPF. I will never write it and I refuse to read it. I could list the reasons why I believe it's wrong, but that really needs a whole separate post, and isn't the point, here.
What confuses me is the invocation of privacy. To me, privacy means something along the lines of confidentiality, so saying that RPF is an invasion of privacy implies that what's being written is true. And it's not, by definition. But what really confuses me is in the P-L discussion everyone seems to accept this peculiar definition of the term.
I kind of cringe at my own attitude, actually, which is sort of "You can do what you like, just don't do it where I have to watch" - which is how my family feel about gays. Hence the cringe.
But I think what bothers me is that these are real people. Real people have real families who can be hurt. I can accept the argument that an actor or band member has chosen to live in the public eye, and this is a consequence. Fine, but his sister or grandmother hasn't made that choice. What happens when X's grandma proudly googles her grandson and gets a hundred hits of X ass-fucking Z over a barrel. Or whatever. That's real damage to a real person - and I don't think there's an argument to justify that.
USA has an evolving body of law which is broadly considered to protect the right to privacy and covers issues like "disparaging opinions". The UK has no such law, nor does it seem likely to in the forseeable future, and the legislation used as a proxy (such as the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts) would not, IMHOP, cover RPF.
and the legislation used as a proxy (such as the Data Protection and Human Rights Acts) would not, IMHOP, cover RPF.
It doesn't have to. The UK's libel and defamation laws are some of the strictest in the world, and they most certainly cover RPF, at least if it's about living people. Those laws have been used to stifle legitimate journalism; they could certainly be used against RPF and those "it's all fiction" disclaimers would be an admission of guilt under libel law, not a defence.
The people involved in the case don't even have to be resident here to bring a case under UK law - our courts have allowed all kinds of libel suits to be brought under UK juristiction, as long as the offending material can be bought or accessed from here.
I know that US law has a weird thing about privacy. Roe vs Wade is founded on the right to privacy, though what that has to do with abortion I have no clue. But I'd rather assumed the actual word means the same thing in both languages; my impression from the recent discussion is very much "that word does not mean what you think it means".
*shrugs* Not important, I guess. I'm anal about debate - how can you have a serious discussion if you can't agree on what the words you're using mean?
I wasn't saying that DPA and HRA are the only pieces of legislation that can be used for libel and defamation, I was saying that they are the closest thing we have to privacy laws but we wouldn't automatically think of them when it comes to issues around disparaging opinions - this may be the root of the different terminology.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
What confuses me is the invocation of privacy. To me, privacy means something along the lines of confidentiality, so saying that RPF is an invasion of privacy implies that what's being written is true. And it's not, by definition. But what really confuses me is in the P-L discussion everyone seems to accept this peculiar definition of the term.
no subject
Yay for the sleeping though. Feeling better for it?
no subject
As do I.
I kind of cringe at my own attitude, actually, which is sort of "You can do what you like, just don't do it where I have to watch" - which is how my family feel about gays. Hence the cringe.
But I think what bothers me is that these are real people. Real people have real families who can be hurt. I can accept the argument that an actor or band member has chosen to live in the public eye, and this is a consequence. Fine, but his sister or grandmother hasn't made that choice. What happens when X's grandma proudly googles her grandson and gets a hundred hits of X ass-fucking Z over a barrel. Or whatever. That's real damage to a real person - and I don't think there's an argument to justify that.
Feeling better for it?
Yeah. I think so. Thanks :-)
no subject
no subject
It doesn't have to. The UK's libel and defamation laws are some of the strictest in the world, and they most certainly cover RPF, at least if it's about living people. Those laws have been used to stifle legitimate journalism; they could certainly be used against RPF and those "it's all fiction" disclaimers would be an admission of guilt under libel law, not a defence.
The people involved in the case don't even have to be resident here to bring a case under UK law - our courts have allowed all kinds of libel suits to be brought under UK juristiction, as long as the offending material can be bought or accessed from here.
I know that US law has a weird thing about privacy. Roe vs Wade is founded on the right to privacy, though what that has to do with abortion I have no clue. But I'd rather assumed the actual word means the same thing in both languages; my impression from the recent discussion is very much "that word does not mean what you think it means".
*shrugs* Not important, I guess. I'm anal about debate - how can you have a serious discussion if you can't agree on what the words you're using mean?
no subject
no subject
no subject