Do pre-November state censorship and efforts to enforce "reputation protection" legislation have anything in common? Maybe more than you think. Why does (not only) the boulevard have the right to write what it wants and to whom the content of the tabloid newspaper will tell us more: about the authors of the content or about its voluntary readers?
It's modern - swearing at tabloid. To say how bad they are that they lie, destroys relationships and poor celebrities as they come to it.
For example, a tabloid diary writes that a famous actor is cheating on his wife. The marriage will fall apart, moderator Kraus will call for state intervention and everything will be wrong.
You know, when the tabloid's nature diary writes that Mr. X is cheating on his wife Y - and that woman believes it, it seems that Mr. and Mrs. XY have had problems with each other before.
After all, tabloids abound in such quantum seriositythat often I don't even believe my own name.
It's true that I don't even know what is written on the hard boulevard, because I don't read it. I have no reason, there is no interesting information for me.
I don't know why I should be interested who, with whom, why, for whom and against whom. And who got drunk at it.
Let's pour pure wine: if no one cared, no one would even write about it. Why do we blame tabloids when do they do nothing but satisfy the needs of their readers?
The boulevard is in my opinion information sewer. But fine, someone wants this sewer and someone can make a good profit from it - good work! Those who take the opportunity and make money on the boulevard are actually quite smart. The content of those slices doesn't tell us much about those who write those newspapers - rather, it tells us something about those who read this newspaper.
The content and the fact that it is possible to make money from his work, they rather show us that a relatively large group of people who are interested live here, who slept with whom and who is taking drugs or drinking. It doesn't tell us much about journalists, but rather it tells us shows a lot about readers. Without them, it would not be possible to make money on the boulevard - and then no boulevard would exist.
If we want to eradicate the boulevard, we have to do something with their readers.
However, one has the right to a reputation? To a "good name"? For "protection against insult"?
What is an insult? It is (usually a relatively core) expression of one's opinion. "Good name" or reputation is nothing but a summary of other people's opinions to a specific person.
Has reputation is, for example, a summary of opinions others people on my person.
Do I have the right to tell people what to think of me?
It doesn't matter if the opinion of others on my person is expressed by specific people or a tabloid - it is the same thing: o the opportunity to have any personal opinion on anyone and the opportunity to express it.
Laws, the purpose of which is to "protect" one's reputation, are then nothing less than coercion correct opinion using the state apparatus.
It punishes the expression of view, opinion. Even a lie is a view of things. If the boulevard writes that "moderator Kraus got drunk in Milan, Italy", when in fact Mr. Kraus was in Brno, Mr Kraus, for example, has no right to tell people how they interpret this message, whether or not they should believe it, and whether it should have written it or not.
If someone thinks that Mr. Kraus is cheating on his wife, even if this is not true, someone has the right to print it wherever they want to print it.
And Mr. Kraus can think whatever he wants about the diary, its readers and authors.
Everyone has the right to lie
Every for it may have Any opinion on anyone a anything.
If we reject this basic assumption, all the arguments that all, for example, state censorship in the media and culture before 1989 was bad are falling. This basic premise is fundamental foundation of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
Everyone has the right to lie. After all, lying is just a form of expressing thoughts, a form of expression. Someone is interested in lies, and so he looks for them - perhaps by reading the boulevard. Someone is not interested in lies, and so does not purposefully look for them - obvious boulevard does not read.
However, if someone wants to hear lies directly and is willing to pay for them, from my point of view, the one who lies is not reprehensible, but he who demands that lie.