Press- its illegal to print bad stuff in luxembourg... what about other countries?

[bad_barbarella]

if you guys married into a royal family would you worry about the mistakes you have made in your life... the more i think about this the more i never want to marry into royalty...

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by bad_barbarella

Luxembourg is a very respectable country. Especially since the laws prohibit bad press. Discuss What would happen if any of these royals were to marry someone in a country that is like obsessed with gossip. For example poor Mary (now Crown Princess Mary). The Australian press didnt leave her alone. Discuss ways of coping with press and your thoughts on this family remaining so private if a member marries into a media massive country :)

Hope i made sense x

Do you have a link to that law, instead of just a general interpretation? Is it just bad press about the Grand Ducal family or any bad press in general? What defines bad press? Is it making up stories, or is it avoiding truth to come out by censoring the more negative stuff? I'm missing some clarifications here to properly understand what we're meant to discuss.

[bad_barbarella]

We will have to find out the exact law...

I think bad press is anything that is personal... i understand they are in a position to make appearences etc... just a matter of keep privacy...

[Danielane]

Originally Posted by Queen Mary I

Freedom of the press is one of the hallmarks of U.S. law so I cannot agree with a country that would supress it. It is dictatorial.

Edited to add however I do not believe the press has a right to harass anyone just because they are celebrities.

The problem with the general mind of the American view of the freedom of the press (I don't speak about you) is that lot of people use it in a sense "we have the right to write everything we want about people, even if these people want secrecy". If people want secrecy about their own life, it should be respected, no matter the freedom of the press.
By the way, the freedom of the press has been used in very recent events to justify some unacceptable revelations, so I'm very sceptical with the meaning of the freedom of the press in the USA.

[msfroyste]

well, unacceptiable in who's opinion? that's the beauty of freedom of the press. something can be seen as perfectly accectable in someone's opinion and as unacceptable in someone else's. that's what a free press (should) provide; not some baised, one-sided view on something, but a mish-mash of views, that way ppl can make up their own minds about something. as for bad press; bad press, is something that can be, and is, considered as negative depending on the person, whether, it be personal or public info, fake news, or the truth. either way, the person, or ppl, it's about, want to keep it hidden, and out of the limelight, in order to either save face, or to damage someone else's image for their personal gain.

[Danielane]

Originally Posted by msfroyste

well, unacceptiable in who's opinion? that's the beauty of freedom of the press. something can be seen as perfectly accectable in someone's opinion and as unacceptable in someone else's. that's what a free press (should) provide; not some baised, one-sided view on something, but a mish-mash of views, that way ppl can make up their own minds about something. as for bad press; bad press, is something that can be, and is, considered as negative depending on the person, whether, it be personal or public info, fake news, or the truth. either way, the person, or ppl, it's about, want to keep it hidden, and out of the limelight, in order to either save face, or to damage someone else's image for their personal gain.

Well, I'm among the ones who find unacceptable that one has revealed the identity of Valerie Plame, for example. That's a very good exemple of what can be very bad with the freedom of press.
I'm not sure to understand what you mean about the will of privacy or secrecy of publics persons.

[msfroyste]

ok, that's getting political- i don't want to get political b/c we're not supposed to talk about politics on here- and everyone knows that it was done for political reasons, which goes back to what i was saying about personal gain. that isn't an example of bad press. it's an example of something that is quite illegal, you're not supposed to "out" cia operatives, for obvious reasons, and that law is on the books here in the US, which is a good thing considering the fact that it could endanger someone's, or several lives, life. do i find her "outing" unacceptable, oh absolutely, b/c it was obviously done for personal and political gain, and the reporter who reported it got into serious trouble b/c she used the freedom of speech/free press card by saying she used the source confidentiality agreement, and b/c of that, wouldn't "out" her source, which she has a right to do b/c we have a right to privacy in this country that is protected by the constitution, which, unfortunatly, is being slowly taken away too. i won't go on anymore b/c i'll probably get repremanded, smacked on the head and told, "no, no, no," by the moderators for going this far.

[Danielane]

What is the point to reveal things who could damage someone, even with the freedom of the press? I never understood it. The freedom of the press is not the right to say everything you want about everyone. Reveal everyone has made an infraction or a crime, why not. Reveal things the government wants to hide, why not (if it's not dangeering the walk of the country). But reveal bad things under the cover of "the freedom of press" should be forbidden. The freedom of press can't go against the right to privacy and the protection of the people, and the dignity of persons.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Originally Posted by bad_barbarella

if you guys married into a royal family would you worry about the mistakes you have made in your life... the more i think about this the more i never want to marry into royalty...

Since there is no bad press...

[msfroyste]

Originally Posted by Danielane

What is the point to reveal things who could damage someone, even with the freedom of the press? I never understood it. The freedom of the press is not the right to say everything you want about everyone. Reveal everyone has made an infraction or a crime, why not. Reveal things the government wants to hide, why not (if it's not dangeering the walk of the country). But reveal bad things under the cover of "the freedom of press" should be forbidden. The freedom of press can't go against the right to privacy and the protection of the people, and the dignity of persons.

freedom of press comes right behind another of our liberties in this country, freedom of speech, which is the very reason why ppl can say what they want about ppl, when they want to, and however they want to. some do get offended by that, but that is the offended's problem, not the offender's- unless they're in some sort of public office and it gets traced back to them some way, thus they have to care b/c it'll have some sort of effect on them. but as far as freedom of speech goes, normal ppl, should give a flying flip about what ppl say about them. they're just words. and while some might hurt, one should put oneself above pettiness b/c it's a waste of time and energy that could be used to do good, rather than damaging someone's reputation, which is where freedom of the press comes in. princess diana, like many other media savy ppl, knew how to use and manipulate the press for her purposes- which in my opinion shows not only common sense, but good judgement. the lesson here: if one knows the press plays an important part in one's life, then there's no reason why one shouldn't use it to one's advantage. freedom of the press is a double edged sword; it can both save you, or it can kill you. imo that is why it is so important to let ppl know the truth so that they can make up their own minds, rather than hiding it, or sugarcoating things, which causes waaaaaay more problems in the long run. sorry ppl and moderators if this got o/t.

[Danielane]

I don't agree at all with you, so don't many people in the world. For me, saying what you want about everyone is a lack of respect toward the person, because it doen't respect the wishes of the person concerned. If I understand you correctly, the people feeling offended should not feel offended because the offender said whatever he wanted. It's a lack of respect. When you talk about someone, you must realize what effect it will have on the people concerned. Recently I was insulted on an Internet forum, I was said by many that the "insulter" had the right to say whatever he wanted and that I should make effort for not feeling offended. It's totally injust. The problem with this extremist conception of the press freedom is that it ignores that when you talk about someone, there are two people concerned: the one who says, the one who is said about. It gives all the rights to the one who says, not the one who's said about. In a fair-balanced relation, there should be equal rights for the two parties, which is not the case here.
And please don't use the example of Diana to justify anything, they are many people who aren't so able to play with the press.
Excuse me to say this, but the argument "let's everyone says what they think so everyone can make up their own mind" is the most stupid I've ever heard (that's doesn't mean you're stupid) because lot of people have stated that in sensible matter such as Iraqi War, there was freedom speech and of press only for the pro-war. So IMO the freedom of speech in the USA is a very bid hypocrisis.
There should not be rights given to someone if it denies right of other people concerned by the matter.

[msfroyste]

ok, chill, it'll be ok, i promise, hehe. i understand your pov. once again, as i have said before, i believe that what i've said is quite fair and it's how quite a few ppl, who understand the constitution of the US, feel about the first few amendments, and how to use them to their benefit, which eveyone should do in the US b/c it's their right to do so, and i'm gonna stand by my statement. how one uses them is up to that individual. i do, however, agree with you on the fact that one should use respect, which goes back to my common sense and better judgement statement. the truth does hurt most ppl, but to hide it or to sugarcoat it, as i've said, will hurt ppl in the long run, such as the iraq war, vietnam, etc, which is what is happening now. the truth should've been known a long time ago, before it even happened. i don't think we should even get into this on this forum, directly anyway, so to finish this discussion, do im me and we will, b/c it's becoming too politicial, which is bound to offend many ppl. i'm sorry if you've felt insulted, and anyone else for that matter, but i've been expressing my opinion on the matter, and i'm sure quite a few other ppl have too, which everyone has a right to do. but what i meant in my other post is, basically, that everyone needs to grow up and stop being overyly sensitve to everything. the world is an ugly place, no matter how much plastic surgery, makeup, tape, glue, etc, that you put on it. the only way ppl will get along is if ppl are truthful. there are many ancient sayings on that, and they all come down to this: truth+patience+open mindedness = peace, understanding, etc. the fact that ppl aren't willing to see someone else pov along with their own at the same time, does tend to blind them to what IS the truth. i am in no way being extremist, i'm being straightforward seeing as most ppl who post here are smart enough on their own to be able to tell their left from their right, hence, they can find the truth for themselves by looking at the facts. chances are, if too many reliable/official sources are saying the same thing, AND if it all adds up to you, then more than likely, it's probably going to be true. i simply used diana's media savyness as 1 example- it was one of the only one's i could've thought of without being too political, and we're not even supposed to discuss politics at this forum, which is what i've been trying to avoid in the first place, which you could've seen, i don't know b/c i'm not you. moving on, we're here to have a friendly discussion on freedom of speech and not to express one's political opionions on wars, the economy, etc. if you'd like to continue on this path, b/c i'm not going to argue with you on this thread, or anyother for that matter, feel free to pm me, b/c it's my wish to abstain from being rude or too far in denial that i can't find my way out; moderators and everyone else, i'm talking about myself here and i'm sorry if it offends anyone b/c it's not meant to do so. besides, let's give someone else a chance to chime in on the subject.

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Wow. this thread is getting way too unrelated to Luxembourg.

[msfroyste]

gaggle, i couldn't agree with you more, nor did i mean for it to become so.

[Josefine]

have anyone found the text that media cant print what ever they want about the principly family

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

I've only heard that bad stuff is illegal. I haven't seen any documents.

[msfroyste]

perhaps they've got a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" like the press in the UK had when wills and harry were growing up.

[drimal]

Originally Posted by bad_barbarella

Luxembourg is a very respectable country. Especially since the laws prohibit bad press. Discuss What would happen if any of these royals were to marry someone in a country that is like obsessed with gossip. For example poor Mary (now Crown Princess Mary). The Australian press didnt leave her alone. Discuss ways of coping with press and your thoughts on this family remaining so private if a member marries into a media massive country :)

Hope i made sense x

I am not familiar with Luxembourg's laws considering bad press and therefore guess your claim is right.

In Luxembourg you have the daily newspapers such as Luxemburger Wort (very nice articles about current events and especially for reigning persons such as the government or the Grand Ducal family), then Tageblatt, newspaper of former labour party and therefore have a different point of view towards the Grand Ducal family (but the few things they write about them is respectful). On the other hand you have a certain satyr paper called De Feierkroop which is rarely objective and most of the time distasteful and rude against member of the government and the Grand Ducal family.
This satyr paper has suffered some accuses in the past because they write rude articles using stupid nicknames for important persons and sometimes even calumny.

But compared to some (German *cough*) pulp magazines this Feierkroop is harmless. It is ridiculous and of very bad taste what some of these German trashy magazines are writing about the Royal families! Especially the Grimaldis are suffering from bad and distasteful news; Princess Caroline took several proceedings against these newspapers and won them. It isn't funny at all if you read that a famous person has died from cancer although that person is still alive... :( Germany needs urgently tougher rules in order to protect the Royal familes. Calumnies and lies shouldn't be allowed!
If you believe these newspapers you believe that Prince Ernst August is a very angry person and Queen Elizabeth's husband a nazi and such claims are just disgusting!

[Layla1971]

I'm not familiar with the laws on freedom of the press for Luxembourg, but in America and Australia, any celebrities wanting to sue these magazines/papers for false claims are met with these publications saying that any censorship of their freedom of the press is illegal. My opinion is that freedom of press laws are being abused by the press only for financial gain. They really don't care if what they print is false or going to hurt people. It seems as soon as a person is famous they are fair game, and seen as not being human, with human emotions. :(

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Originally Posted by msfroyste

perhaps they've got a sort of "gentlemen's agreement" like the press in the UK had when wills and harry were growing up.

They actually did have something written up, I've seen it before. Paparazzi were supposed to stay away until they stopped going to school.