Re: He wha?
quote: "You deliberately mischaracterise the remarks, and it has nothing to do with celebrity or politicians.The point is , is that recording devices are so ubiquitous and social media makes it very easy for ANYBODY to be a "journalist"."
So, the remark I am mischaracterising:
"If I want to do or say something which I am only prepared to do or say privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot do it or say it because it will be reported in a newspaper"
Implying that a voluntary refusal to act, because of a perceived chance of it being reported, is the form of the alleged interference with freedom of expression. You are actually still free to do or say it, but it is fear of the consequences of people finding out that restrains you.
This statement is not referencing things that have already been said or done coming to light, it is referencing things that do not get said or done because they could come to light, and equating that to a violation of freedom of expression. "I cannot express myself, because I do not wish for other people to learn how I expressed myself."
The vast majority of laws are prohibitive in nature, and the fear of the consequences of acts which contravene those laws is supposed to be how we keep society in check. It seems strange that Lord Neuberger is comfortable with "fear of the law" as a valid deterrent to action, but believes "fear of publication" is a violation of his basic rights.
Or am I the only one that put a crime in as his "do or say something" to see how the statement read, and immediately saw it as untenable? "If I want to fiddle kids, which I am only prepared to do privately, then it is an interference with my freedom of expression if I cannot fiddle kids because it will be reported in a newspaper" just doesn't work, does it?