Who Is Entitled To A Right To Privacy?

[cleo612]

~~~snipped~~~

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.

~~~snipped~~~

As I recall, in the very first days that the photo of that little girl was being shown, the Anthonys stated that they did indeed "know it is not Caylee, but it COULD have been" (paraphrased).

They knowingly kept that image in the public eye knowing full well, and even after publicly acknowledging, that it was not Caylee.

To me, this is most egregious, and I totally agree that this young girl's parents should take all legal action available to them against the Anthonys for portraying their daughter in such a manner.

 

[carrie]

IMO,any lack of respect shown by the Anthony's has been paid back to them 1000fold.

I agree completely, and would like to add (JMO of course) this:

I know the A's have done some inappropiate things and have acted in ways that don't make sense to those looking in from the outside. However . . .

none of us really know how we would have acted in their circumstances because, thank God, none of us has gone through what their going through.

 

[Elphaba]

I hope I am never put in the public light due to losing my child/grandchild to someone harming them... because I'm a hot head and will gladly give anyone in the general public a smack down if they don't understand me asking for my right to privacy.

Just because CA went on tv to share what she wanted to share, does not mean the general public is then entitled to "invade" her every move and doings in life. When someone gives an inch, it does not entitle you to take a mile. And if they ask for privacy and one balks at it: then that is just plain disrespectful! And I agree with JBean...

 

[zadari]

I hope I am never put in the public light due to losing my child/grandchild to someone harming them... because I'm a hot head and will gladly give anyone in the general public a smack down if they don't understand me asking for my right to privacy.

Just because CA went on tv to share what she wanted to share, does not mean the general public is then entitled to "invade" her every move and doings in life. When someone gives an inch, it does not entitle you to take a mile. And if they ask for privacy and one balks at it: then that is just plain disrespectful! And I agree with JBean...

ITA the press had NO business camping outside thier home for so long . im suprised they didnt bug the inside of the house for a story ..and as much as i adore caylee and feel sadness for her death there are so so many other children out there that could be alive and DO need the coverage that they dont get . imho they shouldve been out there doing stories on other children instead of camping there night after night .

 

[butwhatif?]

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.

Brilliant post.......I couldn't agree more.
:clap::clap::clap:

 

[mikeysmommom]

IMO,any lack of respect shown by the Anthony's has been paid back to them 1000fold.

ITA :clap::clap::clap:

 

[mikeysmommom]

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.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[ecs5298]

If I valued my privacy I would appear circumspectly in public.

Swinging haammers, accusing anyone and everyone, vilifying anyone who offers aid and comfort, uttering outrageous statements, appearing on multiple talk shows, requesting donations for a very restricted search, manipulating facts, degrading LE, hiring a lawyer who appears daily to state your case in public, surrounding yourself with very public and dubious characters, destroying property,...none of these things seem to lend themselves to suggest a desire for privacy. If the Anthony family desired privace a simple 'No Comment' or' Please help in the search for our grand daughter' or a simple 'thank you kindly' would have worked wonders, attracted abundant assistance, and engendered sympathy.

You cannot demand attention at the top of your lungs one minute because it serves your purpose and then yell to be left alone the next and expect the whole world to follow your wishes.

If you choose to make a public spectacle of yourself than you must expect the public to comment. The Anthonys made their choices. It is what it is.

Do I have sympathy for their loss? Yes I do.

Do I hate the Anthonys? No I do not.

Do I wish them pain or more suffering? No I do not.

Do I believe they should be investigated for wrongdoing? Yes I do?

Do I believe they should be required to follow the laws of the land just as everyone must? Yes I do.

Do I believe they should be punished, if it is proven in a court of law, that they have broken said laws? Yes I do.

Do I think that they rate a 'free pass' because their daughter is accused of killing their grand daughter? No I do not.

Caylee had the right to a long and happy life.

As usual, the preceeding post is only my opinion.

Well said and right on the money!

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Ezryder9]

If I valued my privacy I would appear circumspectly in public.

Swinging haammers, accusing anyone and everyone, vilifying anyone who offers aid and comfort, uttering outrageous statements, appearing on multiple talk shows, requesting donations for a very restricted search, manipulating facts, degrading LE, hiring a lawyer who appears daily to state your case in public, surrounding yourself with very public and dubious characters, destroying property,...none of these things seem to lend themselves to suggest a desire for privacy. If the Anthony family desired privace a simple 'No Comment' or' Please help in the search for our grand daughter' or a simple 'thank you kindly' would have worked wonders, attracted abundant assistance, and engendered sympathy.

You cannot demand attention at the top of your lungs one minute because it serves your purpose and then yell to be left alone the next and expect the whole world to follow your wishes.

If you choose to make a public spectacle of yourself than you must expect the public to comment. The Anthonys made their choices. It is what it is.

Do I have sympathy for their loss? Yes I do.

Do I hate the Anthonys? No I do not.

Do I wish them pain or more suffering? No I do not.

Do I believe they should be investigated for wrongdoing? Yes I do?

Do I believe they should be required to follow the laws of the land just as everyone must? Yes I do.

Do I believe they should be punished, if it is proven in a court of law, that they have broken said laws? Yes I do.

Do I think that they rate a 'free pass' because their daughter is accused of killing their grand daughter? No I do not.

Caylee had the right to a long and happy life.

As usual, the preceeding post is only my opinion.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Well spoken, Paintr. I also think that when the A's started throwing innocent people under the bus, i.e., ZFG and a whole host of others, that they should have expected some of that to cause fall out as pertains to the public's perception of them. How is it right for them to say whatever comes to mind about someone then say, wait! Leave us alone! Give us our privacy? Anyone else remember the Golden Rule?

 

[bailee]

I agree with Nancy and Paintr, and Jbean. I would also like to add that the LE in this case did try to save the A's from themselves, when they requested a GAG order. Such a thoughtful question. Being Canadian, we have wrestled with this very issue for many years now.

I bow to everyones great insight and heartfelt thoughts!

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

If I valued my privacy I would appear circumspectly in public.

Swinging haammers, accusing anyone and everyone, vilifying anyone who offers aid and comfort, uttering outrageous statements, appearing on multiple talk shows, requesting donations for a very restricted search, manipulating facts, degrading LE, hiring a lawyer who appears daily to state your case in public, surrounding yourself with very public and dubious characters, destroying property,...none of these things seem to lend themselves to suggest a desire for privacy. If the Anthony family desired privace a simple 'No Comment' or' Please help in the search for our grand daughter' or a simple 'thank you kindly' would have worked wonders, attracted abundant assistance, and engendered sympathy.

You cannot demand attention at the top of your lungs one minute because it serves your purpose and then yell to be left alone the next and expect the whole world to follow your wishes.

If you choose to make a public spectacle of yourself than you must expect the public to comment. The Anthonys made their choices. It is what it is.

Do I have sympathy for their loss? Yes I do.

Do I hate the Anthonys? No I do not.

Do I wish them pain or more suffering? No I do not.

Do I believe they should be investigated for wrongdoing? Yes I do?

Do I believe they should be required to follow the laws of the land just as everyone must? Yes I do.

Do I believe they should be punished, if it is proven in a court of law, that they have broken said laws? Yes I do.

Do I think that they rate a 'free pass' because their daughter is accused of killing their grand daughter? No I do not.

Caylee had the right to a long and happy life.

As usual, the preceeding post is only my opinion.

:clap::clap::clap:

It's my opinion too, but I never could have said it as well as you!

 

[ThoughtElf]

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.

If I valued my privacy I would appear circumspectly in public.

Swinging haammers, accusing anyone and everyone, vilifying anyone who offers aid and comfort, uttering outrageous statements, appearing on multiple talk shows, requesting donations for a very restricted search, manipulating facts, degrading LE, hiring a lawyer who appears daily to state your case in public, surrounding yourself with very public and dubious characters, destroying property,...none of these things seem to lend themselves to suggest a desire for privacy. If the Anthony family desired privace a simple 'No Comment' or' Please help in the search for our grand daughter' or a simple 'thank you kindly' would have worked wonders, attracted abundant assistance, and engendered sympathy.

You cannot demand attention at the top of your lungs one minute because it serves your purpose and then yell to be left alone the next and expect the whole world to follow your wishes.

If you choose to make a public spectacle of yourself than you must expect the public to comment. The Anthonys made their choices. It is what it is.

Do I have sympathy for their loss? Yes I do.

Do I hate the Anthonys? No I do not.

Do I wish them pain or more suffering? No I do not.

Do I believe they should be investigated for wrongdoing? Yes I do?

Do I believe they should be required to follow the laws of the land just as everyone must? Yes I do.

Do I believe they should be punished, if it is proven in a court of law, that they have broken said laws? Yes I do.

Do I think that they rate a 'free pass' because their daughter is accused of killing their grand daughter? No I do not.

Caylee had the right to a long and happy life.

As usual, the preceeding post is only my opinion.

You two have both done a most excellent job of articulating very clearly and eloquently what many of us feel about this case, and the Anthony's.

TY

(and I am stealing the 'radical triage' schema and 'check yourself before you wreck yourself)

 

[costalpilot]

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

my bolding

I agree with all you've said, but especially the LK comment. OMG. what colossal balls, to go on national TV and lie, not just once, but several times...out and out TRANSPARENT LIES, which they had to know would be recognized as lies by anyone with a cursory knowledge of the tragedy.I'm paraphrasing here but: Cindy said, our investigators are finding out that everything KC said was true.

Of course, no "investigator" in the world could conjure up a ZG or a connection to her. No investigator could make any truth out of KA's many lies to LE when she was first interviewed. No investigator could turn KA's wantonness after she killed Caylee into an INVESTIGATION. No investigator could erase the intense pain and fear from Cindy's face when she faced KA in those horrific jailhouse interviews.

Yet there they are, on national TV, lying as if they had some secret knowing, as if they didn't know their daughter for what she is.......a baby killer, slayer of their darling granddaughter.

I have not understood how they could do that until this moment, as I picture CA's desperate face when she haltingly and fearfully confronted her jailed daughter killer. I believe it was then that CA realized the horrible truth: this daughter, this thing they themselves had brought forth, had brought death and destruction unto their dearest treasure.

And that is why they were able to do all they did afterwards. The Horror was too much. CA cracked, then broke with the knowing. George unhinged much later, of course, and was rendered helpless, ending up in a seedy motel room with beer and pills and dark mutterings. He, clearly, isn't as strong as his wife, nor as intuitive. Oh he knew early on, but he told the detectives ," I don't want to believe ". So he didn't, not then, not until the bones had been unearthed and discovered.

But Cindy knew the horror right then, in that cold jail, when she begged it for that babies life, and it responded with her greatest fear, " Mother!", and that broke her. It caused her to do unbelievable things, such as lying on national TV , where the lie could not hold. When the horror broke her, it made her its own, right then and there, and she became its warrior, its defender, its champion.

Now, for the first time, I feel for her.

 

[yosande]

I would have done just about anything to find my 2 year old granddaughter. Since Caylee has been found, the A family has stayed away from the media. This reinforces my belief that their motives were focused, though it did bring with it a backlash.

It is respectful to give them privacy as they have requested it. CA and GA are attempting to plan a public memorial which is nice of them, and gives them a sense of doing something for Caylee. I don't think they are the horrible people so many others do. I think they walk on eggshells with KC for a reason. That reason is now over. Until they prove otherwise, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
KC didn't care that her baby daughter was laying in the mud, and she doesn't care that she is laying in a cardboard box either.
she does want to continue to destroy her parents by not releasing Caylee to them so she can be treated with respect.
I think KC will keep Caylee in that box forever if she can.
I feel sorry for the A family. I wouldn't want a monster for a daughter, and I'm sure they don't either. and NO, I don't believe it's their fault she is what she is. She chose and have put her parents through hell for years. They didn't know what to do.
I hope it becomes clearer and clearer that they can be free of her now, and I hope for their sakes they do just that.... jmo

 

[marla]

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?

Yes, they've lost their right to complete privacy and you just stated why! :clap:

 

[DotsEyes]

The media would never have gotten so much as a sound bite if the A's didn't participate. However, they no longer want to participate and would like the glare of cameras, shouting reporters and microphones shoved in their faces to stop, go away and leave them alone.

They are entitled to have their privacy respected and should learn to say "no comment" and "ask Mr. BC".

It's over. The baby is gone. KC is going to be convicted. Leave them alone.

 

[Gypsy Road]

I hate even comparing the Ant's to celebrities because they are not celebrities in any shape or form, but like celebrities they chose to do countless interviews, and act out in the media. Heck, they even acted out on their own front lawn (remember the baseball bat and hammer episodes? They knew camera's were rolling). They perpetuated most of this circus. Just think how differently it would be if they had just done the right thing and acted with dignity and self respect - and had just asked the public for tips and publically pleaded with "the kidnappers" to bring Caylee home safely? But no, they didn't do any of this. They acted outlandish and said outlandish things. They got into brawls on their front lawn when they could have easily stayed inside their home and called police. And they wonder why the media won't leave them alone! While I do understand their need for privacy, the Ant's have to take responsibility for feeding the media frenzy themselves. Think of it like this - did Britney Spears get any privacy when she was going through and recovering from her trainwreck? Heck No! Once the media picks up on freakish behavior, they're going to follow it through in hopes they get more on video because that's what sells! It is what it is! (sound familiar?)

 

[JoAnn_W]

I think hospital patients should have their privacy respected. I was deeply bothered by any and all reports of George's hospitalization. Other patients in the hospital as well as staff were probably bothered by the press. It could not be good for George's anxiety. I kept thinking about how any other patient with paranoia issues or anxiety were affected. I also think that there could be people who didn't seek treatment because they were scared off by the press.

I don't think reporters should be anywhere near mental health facilities.

JoAnn_W

 

[JoAnn_W]

I also don't think people who give interviews have given up their rights to privacy. If I see Cher in concert and enjoy an interview she gave on the Tonight Show, that doesn't give me the right to go to her home, or go into her trash or follow her to her sister's house. Wasn't Princess Diana's death enough of a reminder that invasion of privacy has gone too far?

JoAnn_W

 

[JoAnn_W]

About comparing the Anthony's to celebrities: There is a huge difference. Celebrities continually seek the limelight with all things being equal. The Anthony's sought the limelight in the middle of a tragedy- searching for their missing granddaughter (or acting out denial). Don't they deserve amateur status and a chance to learn from their mistakes?

JoAnn_W