We've been round this a few times. It would be nice if there was some sort of general, fair, system for preventing people's lives from being ruined by intrusive scandal reporting or unsubstantiated allegations. The current system is the opposite: the press is free to report what they want, except in rare cases where people with a lot of money or power get to suppress substantiated allegations of wrongdoing that the proper authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate.
The Aitken and Archer libel cases stick in my memory; in both cases, conservative UK government ministers got substantial libel damages by lying on the witness stand. In those cases they were found out and eventually imprisoned for perjury. Since then I always read "prevent damage to .. reputation" as "suppress valid accusations of immoral behavior".
We've been round this a few times. It would be nice if there was some sort of general, fair, system for preventing people's lives from being ruined by intrusive scandal reporting or unsubstantiated allegations. The current system is the opposite: the press is free to report what they want, except in rare cases where people with a lot of money or power get to suppress substantiated allegations of wrongdoing that the proper authorities are unwilling or unable to investigate.
The Aitken and Archer libel cases stick in my memory; in both cases, conservative UK government ministers got substantial libel damages by lying on the witness stand. In those cases they were found out and eventually imprisoned for perjury. Since then I always read "prevent damage to .. reputation" as "suppress valid accusations of immoral behavior".