In which ACMA reverses causality

[lederhosen]

Background: last year NSW Transport Minister (& former Police Minister) David Campbell resigned less than an hour before Channel Seven broadcast footage of him leaving a gay sex club.

So, ACMA has ruled that this was not a breach of privacy protections because, in their words:

"In this case, the resignation of the Minister meant that the broadcast, which would otherwise have been an invasion of privacy, was justified, but solely because it provided a deeper explanation of the circumstances behind the resignation."

Got that? Campbell resigned because Channel Seven was about to out him, but outing him is OK because the public have a right to know why he resigned.

*sigh*

Comments

[chaos_crafter]

You probably saw anyway, but I've written a formal complaint regarding their decision to ACMA, and assuming I get brushed aside, will take the complaint further to the ombudsman. They were very specific in their finding that that was the only reason there was no breach of privacy was legal (had to read the whole @#%^$ response), and as you say, that leaves a causality failure.
Fortunately they are required to respond to my complaint. We'll see how they respond.

[lederhosen]

BTW, are we likely to see you guys tomorrow?