In response to http://dansviolenttorpedooftruth.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-happened-to-freedom-of-speech-2.html. On most things we agree but I’m not sure I agree with you here. The topic of free speech is a difficult one and I think that superinjuctions have a place. I agree that superinjunctions are primarily for the rich and that normal people couldn’t dream of affording one. However just because someone is rich and in the public eye through the media does not mean that their private life is public knowledge. No one should have to lose their privacy because of their job and yes I know they get paid a lot, but money is not a good reason to lose privacy. Some people say that it comes with the job and it is their fault for taking the job, but in reality the people who say this are nosy or want to exploit these famous people. The case of MP’s expense claims is completely different. MPs work for the public and spend public money therefore it should be a matter of public record how they spend that money and they should be scrutinised. The difference is whether something should be known because it is in the publics interest or whether it should be known because the public are interested in it. The second is not a good reason for something to be public knowledge but the first is.
Speaking out about the problems with our political system.
