Yep . . . again with the blurries.
File under “the National Evil, keeping you updated on the goings-on in the seamy underworld of hardcore S&M sex orgy-related lawsuits” . . .
Remember this post from last week? Well, Mr. Mosley has won his privacy case against the nefarious News of the World (of Red-Hot Depravity) to the tune of $120,000 in damages—which, sadly, is only half as many pounds. Ye Gods!—Evil remembers people joking that “If you take a thousand bucks to Mexico, you can live like a king!” Soon that’ll be the case with our former British overlords. For shame.
[T]he main point out of the decision was that public figures’ sex lives were out of bounds unless a hypocritical element could be proved. For example, a politician who was campaigning on a moral platform while violating those morals in his private life.
The Evil, plotting his own meteoric rise to worldwide fame, wholeheartedly endorses this interpretation. Especially since his own tastes run toward the most diabolical, twisted acts imaginable; the only he could introduce a “hypocritical element” would be to cuddle a kitten. Not a sex kitten. A real kitten. A cute one. In a nurturing, non-sexual way. So that works out pretty well for the Evil, opening heretofore forbidden avenues of depravity to his always-smoldering imagination. (Those kittens are doomed! Dooooomed!)
Hmm. Scratch that last paragraph.
At the heart of the matter is this:
News of the World editor Colin Myler said he believed the story was one of “legitimate public interest and one that I believe was legitimately published,” PA reported.
There is an insidious logic that has taken hold of our media, and it revolves around that oh-so-slippery term, “public interest.” The interpretation that seems to have taken root in Western society is quite literal: whatever the public finds interesting. Again and again you’ll hear media types and their paparazzi dogs defending their invasive practices by this logic. Perhaps we should ban the term “public interest” entirely, replacing it with . . . jeez . . . the “public good”?
As in: this information must be imparted for the good of the public. For example, the hypothetical (cough, cough) politician described above. You need to know about these things in order to make an informed voting decision; you do not, however, need to know what Brangelina’s babies look like. (Unless of course they say screw it and sell off the pictures.)
Please note that this is the first, and possibly only, time the Evil will endorse anything “good”.
Enjoy the weekend. If possible, defend your privacy like a mother bear protecting her cubs.