“You mean ‘words’, private words only heard in public because of recordings.”
He does not have a right to privacy, but the media does have the right to publish that he told the mother of his child that she would be raped by a bunch of N-Bombs and that he made a statement to the police that the Jews are responsible for all the wars.
>> He does not have a right to privacy, but the media does have the right to publish
“does have a right” ?
I don’t have a problem with the media exploiting private issues that involve criminal activity.
The point I’d like to make is that anger should not be deemed criminal based on it being highly offensive. The ‘line’ between inciting criminality and anger expressed in speech is anything but clear these days - at least from the perspective of the rancid political environment we’re in.
I’m not giving Gibson a pass for his verbal antics. And if the allegations of criminality prove to be true, he must be held accountable. This, however, is unrelated to the issue of society’s imperfect response to anger, and how that affects our Constitutional guarantees. We contribute to the process that rots our Liberties every time we agree with the control freaks that wish to regulate our speech and thoughts. This ‘cooperation’ often occurs whenever there are reports of bullying, antisemitism, Catholic bashing, racism, etc. - all morally unacceptable, but not necessarily criminal. This is of course about facilitating ‘speech rules’ that target the ambiguous, subjective nature of ‘hate speech’.