785 users online (167 members and 618 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 107
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    541

    Question Who Is Entitled To A Right To Privacy?

    Since Dec. 14, The Anthony's attorney (Conway) has asked, pleaded and demanded that the privacy of the Anthonys be respected. I have read at least a dozen news articles and watched his interviews, and this is a constant theme with Conway. I find it disgusting, so I ask here: who has a right to privacy, and at what point is that right relenquished?

    In my eyes, the Anthonys sold their right to privacy when they bartered their appearances in the national media for money. Lee sold his when he asked for donations to his personal paypal account. This test would also apply to Kiomarie and others that sold their stories to the media.
    It goes deeper than this for me however. I often ask the following questions:

    Why didn't the Anthonys respect the rights to privacy of JG and Amy as they subtly steered LE to investigate them?

    Why didn't the Anthonys respect the right to privacy of the little girl in the Orlando Mall? They knew it was not Caylee, yet insisted that the photo continually be shown. Thank goodness, the girl was not identified.

    Why didn't Cindy respect TM's right to privacy when she publicly proclaimed him to be alcoholic? What an awful thing to do, but I don't hear Conway crying foul.

    Why is a public memorial being held in a forum with video capabilities? Don't the attendees of such a memorial have a limited right to privacy?

    I'm sure that those here can post a dozen more examples of the Anthonys lack of respect for the rights of others. So why such a clamor for their own rights? I agree that the media should not be camped out at the house, and droves of reporters should not hound them for photographs and interviews.

    But did they cross the line months ago and lose their right to complete privacy?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    10,875
    Great questions and great examples already given.

    I do feel they lost the right to their own privacy months ago. (The picture of CA giggling and running alongside the media with her grin is enough to remind me when I waver.)

    All of the instances you have pointed out really bother me, most especially the picture of the little girl in the Orlando Mall 'tip' sighting.

    I do feel George has a right to privacy in regards to any health/psych issues and treatment.

    I'm not crazy about the memorial being videotaped or broad-casted, yet, I know I will watch if it is. And cry.
    Last edited by ThoughtElf; 02-05-2009 at 04:26 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,117
    interesting thoughts and questions....I tend to agree with you. I'm still having problems trying to figure out how the privacy issue has been invaded? As far as I can tell or remember the only time the press has really hung around was during the search of crime scene and such...then of course the night of ga attempt...other than that you really don't hear anything about them EXCEPT FROM BC, which is generally outside of the a's....other than that are the media in Flordia following them all over? You really don't hear much....
    jmo

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,752
    IMO,any lack of respect shown by the Anthony's has been paid back to them 1000fold.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,217
    Everyone has a right to privacy.
    However, the Anthony's were not worried about privacy when they went on Larry King Live the night before Caylee's remains were found.
    I will never forget that broadcast. Both George and Cindy brought the case into our lives and laid it in our laps. And both lied about the smell in the car's trunk, insisting it was rotting food. We all watched while their initial story changed right before our eyes.
    Televising the memorial is a very poor decision. I will not watch it. It's a public event held to honor Caylee. In no way does showing it on television add to that objective. I believe showing the memorial is another ploy by Casey's family to buy sympathy for her or influence the public.
    Their attorney should stay off the air and stop reminding us to give the Anthony's privacy. Everytime he appears we are reminded of the case.
    jmo
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Lewisville. Texas
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    IMO,any lack of respect shown by the Anthony's has been paid back to them 1000fold.
    'Nuff said.

  7. #7
    Laece's Avatar
    Laece is offline Bring it on down to Omelette-ville-ahhh!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Pa
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay D View Post

    Why is a public memorial being held in a forum with video capabilities? Don't the attendees of such a memorial have a limited right to privacy?
    because it's public. if people don't want to be made public, they can opt not to go unless it is switched to private instead...as maybe it should be, anyway. just saying.

    although it's hard to think of privacy as in '5000 of the anthonys' closest friends and family.
    do not use my posts without my written permission, other than for use contained within quoting on this websleuths site.

    just because you always think someone is hiding in the bushes, doesn't mean that they're not.

    You're out of the woods
    You're out of the dark

    You're out of the night
    Step into the sun, step into the light.



    Just stop it, Casey.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In left field (where the birds are)
    Posts
    3,746
    I believe people have the right of privacy until they voluntarily open up their lives to the public. The As did so when they appealed to the public for help when Caylee was missing. If they truely believed that Caylee had been taken by another, I expect that privacy was very low on their list of priorities. If so, the public stance was absolutely appropriate - get that baby's picture in front of as many people as possible as often as possible.

    However, as time went by and the evidence mounted that Caylee had not been taken by ZFG, the As continued their public posturing. Even after Caylee's remains were found, they continued pushing themselves, often via their lawyer, into the public. They even had their lawyer un-necessarily draw their names into court proceedings for the defendant, their daughter. This evening their elaborate plans to evade the media upon George's release from the hospital were announced. Who made those plans, who announced the plans and what was the motive for doing so ?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    IMO,any lack of respect shown by the Anthony's has been paid back to them 1000fold.

    Bold mine

    .......and then some


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by Laece View Post
    because it's public. if people don't want to be made public, they can opt not to go unless it is switched to private instead...as maybe it should be, anyway. just saying.
    The reason I raise that question is due to current news that the Anthonys will refuse to be deposed if it is taped. Why do they insist on dictating what should be video'd, and what should not? What gives them the right to decide what is private and what is not? Cannot those grieving and wanting closure (but are not invited to a private ceremony) attend without having themselves taped?
    Of couse, not knowing what is scheduled to be taped, I'm getting one step ahead of myself....again.
    Now back to the subject of privacy....


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Katy TX
    Posts
    116
    AMEN to everyone's comments above. Privacy only comes into play when it is in the A's favor!!!!

  12. #12
    EmMomma's Avatar
    EmMomma is offline Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay D View Post
    The reason I raise that question is due to current news that the Anthonys will refuse to be deposed if it is taped. Why do they insist on dictating what should be video'd, and what should not? What gives them the right to decide what is private and what is not? Cannot those grieving and wanting closure (but are not invited to a private ceremony) attend without having themselves taped?
    Of couse, not knowing what is scheduled to be taped, I'm getting one step ahead of myself....again.
    Now back to the subject of privacy....
    IMO, there's a difference between decency (ie: being able to wash your car in your driveway without microphones being shoved in your face) and legal proceedings, like the depositions. YES, the Anthony family deserves privacy (it DOES irk me that they've used the media to their perceived advantage and then shunned them, but Caylee is undeniably GONE now). NO, I do not think they should be entitled to special treatment as far as the law is concerned.

    My heart hurts when I think about the fact that G&C will never see their precious Caylee on this Earth again. However, you reap what you sow. A little honesty and humility could have gone a long way in this situation.

    "Lost is not alone..." T. Miller, Founder TES (and MY HERO!!!)

    "I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will." -

    Edward Everett Hale

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,401
    I think you make a really interesting point and illustrate it with compelling examples.
    I guess your question boils down to a judgment call. In my own life, I like to employ a schema I refer to as radical triage-- radical, because I think it's important to meaningfully examine the possible motivation/impetus for someone's actions and triage because my own actions/reactions are conditioned by my belief that sometimes my own interests, values and beliefs must take a backseat to the exigent or exceptional circumstances of others.

    The radical part:
    I think the A's first engaged the media because they thought media coverage could help get Caylee back. I think the A's pointed fingers at uninvolved parties because they were speaking with LE and they truly believed, at that point, that someone else had to be involved. I think broadcasting the picture of the FL Mall toddler was totally wrong and out of line. I think that if the A's really thought that was Caylee in the picture and that showcasing the image on tv was the best way to get her back, they were in need of some psychological assistance at that point. In the alternative, I think the parents of that toddler deserve to take action against the A's if it can be proven that the A's knowingly exploited their child to further their own interests.

    The triage:
    The A's have made mistakes. The A's have done and said some truly inappropriate things.

    The Anthonys have also suffered a tremendous loss. They are actually in pain.

    So, IMO, they deserve some compassion and some consideration. If they've comitted a crime, they should be dealt with in the appropriate legal forum. If their behavior has been tortuous, they should be dealt with in the appropriate legal forum.

    For all their other mistakes or bad choices, they're going to pay for them for the rest of their lives-- and pay more than any human being should ever have to pay, IMO.

    I don't think their bad behavior confers upon society a right to invade George's medical privacy or for everyone to feel entitled to ridicule how they choose to memorialize and grieve for Caylee.

    Personally, I feel that keeping score and tit-for-tatting through life threatens to erode one's humanity. And, if left unchecked, it can become something like "you broke up with me! I'm going to burn your house down!"

    So to me, it's like "apples and oranges" meets "check yourself before you wreck yourself." So yes, the Anthonys deserve some privacy and some respect, just like all human beings, IMO.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay D View Post
    The reason I raise that question is due to current news that the Anthonys will refuse to be deposed if it is taped. Why do they insist on dictating what should be video'd, and what should not? What gives them the right to decide what is private and what is not? Cannot those grieving and wanting closure (but are not invited to a private ceremony) attend without having themselves taped?
    Of couse, not knowing what is scheduled to be taped, I'm getting one step ahead of myself....again.
    Now back to the subject of privacy....
    Oh I missed this post.
    Entitled to privacy in their deposition responses?? No way!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    241
    We are all entitled to privacy and we all have it. It is up to an individual to protect their privacy. No one makes you talk but YOU. We are in control of what we say. IMHO, they weren't concerned about their privacy when they stood in front of the camera and now, they don't seem to know how to regain control of it.

    Very good points and questions you brought up!

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-18-2013, 08:18 PM
  2. Kind of sad, foster children not entitled to inheritance
    By blueclouds in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2004, 12:50 AM