Answer: As the different legislations and jurisprudences vary from case to case, from country to country, from situation to situation, I had once to clear up my own personal positioning concerning the how to deal with personal information in public contexts.
It’s true that most of it is the result of education as coming from my mother, although I had to improve certain aspects that made the whole extremely weak against the customs in use.I do consider my experience as my private good. As such, I esteem I can deal with it as I understand it, and may even further information that may hurt others whenever I have sufficient proofs. Otherwise, I may make an appreciation, a suggestion, give a point of view, an interpretation that does reflect my vision of things, without it implying anyone else but myself.
I do thus consider that I may publish (not sell) pictures that are the result of my private interaction with people, situations, etc. in a personal space (the mine inside of the mine) as illustration of things I say, as support or simply as souvenir.Consequently I may say what I’ve heard (as such, not as a fact) in order to define my relationship to people, were this hurting or not for others, inside of the principle: you better shut up if you don’t want the whole be repeated.
I detest being put in knowledge of things concerning other people’s private affairs and tend to revenge myself heavily of these ‘confidences’ by repeating them or even publishing them in an ironical context.
In principle I respect the social position of who ever, be it as mother, as father, as manager or as priest, but can’t really bear those misusing a certain number of privileges in order to neglect others in word or consideration, so that it may happen that I forget the social position in question.
In general I esteem that except of some perverted natures no child would like to see his/her mother be considered a whore (if she were) and consequently do prefer not knowing who is the bastard who is publishing that kind of information.
In principle I consider anyone’s private life his own, except if law is infringed: rape, pedophilia, brutalization, incest, etc. In which case I think it of moral obligation to reveal the fact as given, if ever possible to establish.
I think that a public person can’t avoid seeing his name, image, personal information be divulgated, but has the obligation to make law be respected in cases there is misuse or violation of private spheres or space.
Considering the difficulty in proving the nature of different insults, I do generally esteem that there are a certain number of things that allow a poisoned exchange of compliments without this being of the concern of justice, and if in public, sufficiently intelligent so as not to become proof for justice.
Although I respect everyone’s choice of life, I find it rather disgusting when someone who is making a picture where she/he is nude, is confused with a prostitute, and even more so if these pictures are obtained through oblique means (hidden cameras, far distance cameras, etc.)
Although it is true that everyone’s life is his, I tend to remind of the fact that a marriage is a contract, and any adultery a broken contract. The fact that a contract is broken makes, to my understanding, of anyone who goes that far a not reliable person, fact at which may be pointed out in case of need through evidences.
Prostitution is neither forbidden nor contrary to law. Adultery is though. Homosexuality is not forbidden, either. Hidden cameras and publication of private information though, is. As the most perverted of actual tendencies is to make appear legal activity as a crime in order to have an excuse in order to point at others, I think it rather excusable some people be treated as what they are: random bastards.
For this I remind of the fact: that neither abortion, nor homosexuality, nor prostitution are as such forbidden, among other, but even watching at pictures of minors in sexual activity, is, pedophilia, even passive, is, incest as show, is too, and many etc.On the other hand it is obvious that I rather tend to spit on people who pretending to be fathers and mothers, do spend their time watching porno, exchanging couples, hiring prostitutes, etc. and think it then of their moral obligation to point at someone with accusing finger because he/she is not married.The obvious distortion caused by pretended morality which makes fun of law in order to better serve some one’s perverted tendencies, is to my understanding at the origin of lacking proper evaluation of people who pretend that the very fact of being married or having children makes of them the last holders of rights and privileges. Making fun on this people is nothing but a last ressource in order to re establish proper values.
It is for me an evidence that the very fact of causing damage to image through pretended involvement in whatsoever or publication of private life without agreement of those who are supposed to represent a whole, as a nation, or parts of people, as idol, as muse, as public person in general should be violently repressed and consequently reverted in payment of damages, by making though the intelligent difference between someone who pretends to something without reason what so ever and the one who may have a somewhat tormented private life for his/her own reasons.
In cases involving public people having giving word in one direction or the other (church), the fact of there being rupture of word should be published, denounced and punished, as people confused in their beliefs through evidences that are on top of that consequently hidden away.
As it is extremely difficult to make the consequent share in what is to be said or not, published or not, known or not, I do take measures in what concerns my own life: for who I don’t like to be aggressed in my ideal image, I attack those who bother it. If some one is angry because I say too much, shall he/she, because if I aggress, there are reasons for which I don’t want to know anything about this person, and if I don’t and he/she gets angry, may I consider a friend who doesn’t understand what I’m saying?
I do rather take distances from people who fall into other people’s gossip concerning my own life. As I have never been married, I’ve never broken any contract what so ever. And I’ve dealt with my private life inside of my own understanding without ever infringing law. Consequently I feel morally reliable (although I tell many lies). As I’ve never given away neither word, nor made promisses, nor signed anything for comfort, image, money, nor have I submitted to any sexual pressure promising higher positions, parties, pictures in news papers, publications, etc. I can’t link myself the way what so ever to prostitution. Consequently I feel morally respectable.
As I’ve never been further of my own moral positioning concerning information furthered about others, I think myself morally sound. If anyone does thus want even to excuse crimes I’ve never committed and whose simple thought may be hurting my pride, I may just turn my back quite coldly to those.As I’m quite proud, I don’t worry pointing at how ridiculous others are, which I can because I’ve never broken law. Have you?