 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
sarahc
Posts:631
 | | 07/10/2007 8:04 PM |
 Alert | I have always assumed that if someone wanted to run for a public office they understood there lives would be put under the microscope. These are men and women who are representing our community, they make decisions that affect our daily lives and govern the hard earned dollars we put into cities and stats.
Dose putting your life out there for the public to see still disserves an expectation of privacy?
What about actors and actresses? Do you think they have an expectation to privacy?
| | | |
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 07/10/2007 8:18 PM |
Alert | I think actors, actresses, and celebrities are in a separate category from public servants. Allow me to elaborate.
Celebrities in general are in a position where they spend quite a lot of time courting publicity and attention. They need it in order to acheive a certain status, at which point they generally feel the need to pull back a bit and ask others to "respect their privacy." The irony is that they lived lives which were entirely private until they brought the fame and interest upon themselves! 
Public servants are in another category, because not all of them actively court fame. Sure, your politicians do (and they can actually reach "celebrity" status in doing so)...but there are also others who prefer to toil quietly behind the scenes. I believe that as long as any of them are accepting public money, then what they do while they're on-duty is fair game. This is taxpayer money we're talking about, so everything done would need to be okay with the taxpayers who are subsidizing them.
But their private lives are different from celebrities'. Unlike celebrities, which need the tabloids as much as the tabloids need them, public servants go home to a private life that is typically devoid of such attention-seeking nonsense. As it should be.
So anyway, my feeling is that if you put yourself in the public eye in the attempt to achieve celebrity, you get the pitfalls as well as the spoils. But if you're just Joe Pencilpusher working for the city of Mayberry, USA; your public life ends the moment you walk into the door of your house at night. | | | |
|
| | MommaToni
Posts:1045
| | 07/10/2007 8:24 PM |
Alert | I think they should be allowed their privacy (actors/actresses that is). Just because we watch them in a movie or a sitcom doesn't mean that we have the right to get into their personals lives.
I think all people have the right to privacy.
An official should be allowed some privacy BUT, he/she is serving our community, country or whatever and actually have a role in our lives and make decisions that affect us. (an actor does not). We do need to know certain details of their private life so we know what kind of person they are and what morals they live by so we can make a decision on whether or not they are the ones we want representing/watching out for us. | |
Ppppppbbbbbbssssssssssttttttttt! | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2548
| | 07/10/2007 9:08 PM |
Alert | Even as a celebrity, what Britney Spears wears beneath her miniskirt is none of my business - until she decides to flash it for everyone to see. Then it becomes a legitimate topic for conversation (although I am not sure how much can be said about it without becoming rhetorical and redundant). Entertainment celebrities depend on publicity to keep their name up in lights. As the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity (except your own obituary). Sometimes that is even an exception. Privacy is the last thing most of these folks want.
Politicians are a little different. What they require in order to succeed are two things: name recognition and positive image. The name recognition comes from the campaign signs, quotes in the paper, etc. The positive image is sometimes engineered, i.e., a photo op Sunday morning on the steps of the church, a picture on their web site of them with the required wife and two kids. Now, when we have a picture of this same politician coming out of a brothel, privacy goes out the window and it becomes fair game. Actually, a free press is required to publish the scandal because they also published the picture of him on the church steps.
A defendant cannot be required to take the witness stand. However, once he does, it's no holds barred. Almost anything becomes fodder for the prosecution, including past behavior that may have otherwise been inadmissible.
That having been said, do we have the right to dig into a politicians private personal life? My opinion is that we do only to the degree that it impacts his ability to do his job or his level of trustworthiness, or to dispute or substantiate a claim that he's made. If he makes a campaign issue out of the fact that he's never beaten his wife, asking the wife if she's been abused by him during an interview may be appropriate.
I am not sure I want a bunch of saints in government. Government should be representative of the people, and all of us certainly aren't saints. If we make a public servants private life a public issue, we're going to have very few people qualify for public service, and even fewer want to serve.
| |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:243
| | 07/10/2007 9:28 PM |
Alert | Very well stated. In fact, it caused me to stop writing my reply because I couldn't say it better.
| |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | matmo
Posts:88
| | 07/10/2007 9:56 PM |
Alert | | Well said DD... | |
amatman
Senior Member
Posts: 5398
Joined: Oct 2006
| |
|
|  | McFly
Posts:17
| | 07/11/2007 5:25 AM |
Alert | Did this topic come up because of the recent delve into the private life of a City government official? If so, didn't that city official put his private life out there for all to examine when he claimed a "private life" reason for his demotion? The other "private life" issues that have been mentioned throughout this forum would certainly interfere with his abilities to lead and to do his job.
While I don't need a Saint to represent me I certainly want someone who is moral, ethical and doing the job they are getting paid to do. I don't need to pay, with my tax dollars, for someone's courtship. I also want someone who tells the truth all the time, not just when it suits them! | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2548
| | 07/11/2007 6:08 PM |
Alert | McFly, I think it depends on what impact the private life has on the person's ability to do the job. No, just going into public service as a government employee doesn't require one to give up their privacy. Nor does holding an elected office. I believe that it's pertinent only to the degree that it impacts the person's ability to do the job.
Who is the judge of what's moral? Once we start going that direction, there is room for a lot of interpretation and subjectivity. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|