Hamlet,
I suspect your personal moral choices are getting the way of logic. A trifle arrogant/patriarchal/intolerant don’t you think?
You’re saying that anyone in public the public’s eye forgo their RIGHT to a private life/ security by virtue of their job. Just because the ‘need a life brigade’ likes titillation from salacious ‘revelations’ with their dinner. This doesn’t sanction creating unwilling victims (there are enough individuals who are happy to expose themselves in reality shows) much less be encouraged.

I wonder how sanguine the editors, journalists’ would be if it was private lives were being trashed. Well, they are willingly in the public eye. Likewise by your reasoning I have the right to invade your privacy because you publish your views (in the public eye).

Explain to me logically how if an action is legal under the law then why shouldn’t an MP have the same rights?
• Explain to me how this stops him/her from doing their jobs? Does their brain/ability stop because they have sex out of wedlock?
• Who amongst us hasn’t been hypocritical at some time?
• Political parties offer collective stances… which may not reflect the personal view of all their MPs. (welcome to politics)
I advocate the criteria for public intrusion being a breach of the law, one that adversely compromises theirjob performance .

Our legal structure is based on the legal presumption of innocence until proven otherwise and deploring vigilantism. Once the damage is done like ‘feathers released on a windy hill’ no amount of compensation will get them all back. Therefore rights to personal privacy need to be proactive therefore codified and breaches Crimes (Police actions). In reality they are assaults in all but name. As the law stands only the rich have practical access to the courts.

examinator, there is nothing controversial in what Hamlet said. Its generally understood in our society becoming a public face involves making a Faustian bargain with the media. They will publicise your views, but in return they get to pick them and your reasons for publicising them apart. That necessarily requires you to give up some privacy.

This Wikipedia article describes US law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

The same views are held here:

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/apcnews/may94/public.html

examinator: "Explain to me logically how if an action is legal under the law then why shouldn’t an MP have the same rights?"

The logic is very simple. If you attempt to manipulate the public's views, the public gets to have a long hard look at you.

Examinator, what a person does in private, where legal, and involving the informed consent of participants should indeed remain private.

However, a democratic society is based on the idea of people being informed, particularly where it comes to any alleged hypocrisy or corruption on behalf of public figures, whether they be elected representatives, or non-elected 'community leaders' or people who claim to speak on behalf of the community, such as media commentators.

A politician who has, using my previous example, taken a public stand against prostitution, but then indulges in consensual paid sex, is really showing that their public stand is just a front, and whilst they should have a right of rebuttal, it is in the public interest to know what that person's real attitude is. The same goes for the anti-drug campaigner who abuses alcohol.

Or are you saying that we should accept everything at face value, and that no behaviour should be questioned?

Regarding the individual citizen's privacy: a basic example - if a woman exposes her breasts on a public beach, she is doing so in a public place, and therefore should have no expectation of privacy. If she does it in her own backyard, not visible from a public space, then she has an expectation of privacy.

Someone, anyone, celebrity or not, walking on a public street is doing so in public, not private, so they should have no expectation of privacy. There are some examples that can be questioned however, such as privately owned shopping malls, or places such as railway stations and airports, which whilst conditionally open to the public, may also be considered to be, at least in some respects, private spaces, with the conditions of privacy being set by the owners, and not by the people utilising those spaces.

In terms of virtual public space, when someone gets up on television (ie, a ‘virtual’ public space) and tells a lie that brings a benefit to them, does that person really have an expectation of privacy if someone else knows the truth and exposes them?

Is that concept too difficult?

Hamlet,
Not at all, I understand your concept but it’s logically inconsistent.
Perhaps you can explain the rationale for stalking laws?

By definition if a party member supports party policy even if he/she personally disagree. Are then a hypocrite?
Your criteria of hypocrisy is unrealistic please point to any leading politician who hasn’t indulged in that regularly?

Do I understand that if a MP doesn’t have public views on prostitution then he’s entitled to partake because he’s not a hypocrite? Prostitution in Qld is s legal in brothels it doesn’t exclude hypocrites and politicians. Then there's the unitended vitims their families (children).

Apart from which I think your expectation and understanding of parliamentary representation are unrealistic/flawed. Neither is it a matter of taking them at face value nor how well they suit my personal philosophy. If I did I’d never vote for anyone. There are better ways to assess their suitability.

I expect MPs to put forward the views of the electorate. That’s the point of elections. I don’t vote for politicians on their legal private lives. I vote for them on their ABILITIES to represent the electorate.

MP Heffernan well out of line when he attacked High Court Justice Michael Kirby publicly protected in “coward’s castle”. Kirby is/was one of this country’s best Jurists ever and I don’t give “a rats…” as to his personal private leanings. They are irrelevant it’s his extraordinary, unique ability and achievements I respect. Where was his justice? Likewise I don’t care if my cancer Surgeon legally frequents brothels either only that he sterilises properly before operating.
My point is such salacious intrusions are irrelevant.

The idea that public people aren’t entitled to a normal life in public places is ridiculous. You are saying that they aren’t entitled to go to the beach, walk in the park etc with their family (who didn’t agree to be public) in peace that borders on the obscene.

Privacy is a fundamental right. Google Street announced that they had filmed the major urban areas of Australia just prior to the Olympic. Imagine my disgust when I Google Streeted my street and could clearly see my car [and perhaps its number plate] and my good self [spying on the neighbours improvements]. The next time I looked I had disappeared.

Billie, that is sooo funny - privacy as a right and you were caught out SPYING on your neighbours improvements! ROFLAO!!

Meanwhile, when are people going to learn that nothing done 'in public' is private? There is no expectation of privacy in a public place - so don't do anything IN PUBLIC that you are not prepared for the whole world to know about! It is as simple as that.

Challenges to that principle can lead to public figures being able to hide wrongdoing and corruption, take the so-called democracies of SE Asia as an example: corruption is exposed, and the corrupted have the exposers imprisoned for libel - yes Examinator, that is the next step to your desired process.

Examinator: so what you are saying is that any politician can be as two faced / lying / corrupt / hypocritical as they like and no-one has the right to know that they are two faced / lying / hypocritical?

Next thing you will be demanding that all court cases should be closed to the public and the press, so that an accused privacy is protected, even if they are guilty. That we, the public, should never learn what happens in Courts, all in the name of privacy.

There has to be a balance between privacy and openness. The vote that I cast in an election is individually private, however the results, in terms of who won the election, and what the results in the various electorates, and booths, are not.

If a public figure wants their privacy, so be it, just don't pretend to be open to public scrutiny. It sounds like you are close to someone who has been caught out in ways that they would prefer not to have become known.