Site Meter

Tiger Woods and Privacy

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Matt says:

    That was very nicely done, Dan. It’s hard to make a clear point and offer a plausible, if short, argument in that amount of space but I thought it was very well done and the argument plausible. I don’t know much about the British system you discuss, but do you think it avoids the sort of excesses that seem common with their approach to liable law? My initial worry about it is that it might well make it hard for some people to defend their own reputations, or for true information that is plausibly relevant for public debates to be made public. (For example, it seems at least plausible that when some of the people making ridiculous “what about the children?” arguments in the Clinton impeachment cases turned out to have affairs themselves that this was relevant information for the public, as it revealed the arguments to be not only foolish but also phony, as masks for pure politics. That’s important information, but if it can be kept back as “private”, it might not come out.)

  2. Sean M. says:

    The problem with celeberties who cry “privacy” is they wish to be private when privacy suits them and wish to be public when publicity suits them. Even though Tiger seems to be fairly mum about his personal life, his public persona, including his endorsement deals, is based on him being a wholesome, average sort of guy.

    So if Tiger wants to be in the limelight for the things he wants to be in the limelight about, he has to accept that he’ll be in it for things he doesn’t want to be in it about. But selective publicitly is just unfair.