Wragg Abstract

Notice (8): Undefined variable: meta_for_layout [APP/View/Layouts/default.ctp, line 25]

        echo $this->Html->meta(array('http-equiv'=>'X-UA-Compatible', 'content'=>'IE=edge'));
        echo $this->Html->meta(array('name' => 'viewport', 'content' => 'width=device-width, initial-scale=1'));    
                echo $meta_for_layout;

$viewFile = '/home/extropy8/public_html/app/View/Layouts/default.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'page' => 'wragg_abstract',
	'subpage' => null,
	'title_for_layout' => 'Wragg Abstract',
	'content_for_layout' => '<div class="abstract col-md-12">
<p>
    <strong>Sporting Figures, 'Societal Duties' and its Effect on their Privacy Rights</strong>
</p>
<p>
    <em> </em>
</p>
<p>
    <em>Robin Barnes, Executive Director, Global Institute for Freedom and Awareness, US</em>
</p>
<p>
    <em>Dr Paul Wragg, Associate Professor in Law, School of Law, University of Leeds</em>
</p>
<p>
    Professional football on both sides of the Atlantic has been plagued recently by parallel controversies in which offensive but privately-expressed thoughts
    of high-profile figures have been publicly disclosed in order to provoke public debate about the morality of those individuals either continuing to hold
    positions of power within the sport or of holding such positions in the future. Yet but for apparent breaches of confidence the evidence informing these
    discussions would not have been publicly known. The potential penalisation of these individuals for the expression of offensive and unpopular ideas in
    their private correspondence says something profound about the limits of rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
</p>
<p>
    In an era of constant and ubiquitous public comment and condemnation on the attitudes and lifestyle choices of 'public figures' - a troublingly imprecise
    term potentially capturing anyone in public-facing employment - the limits of their constitutional rights is a matter of significant concern deserving of
    greater discussion.
</p>
<p>
    This paper considers the philosophical and legal ramifications, in the United States and United Kingdom, of the popular treatment of prominent sporting
    figures as <em>quasi</em> public office holders. The popular reaction to offensive speech by public figures says something profound about the
    constitutional rights of those individuals and the extent to which they are, and should be, limited by the societal duties they are taken to hold on
    account of their prominence as role models.
</p>
<p>
    Our paper argues that in order to avoid a deleterious impact on privacy rights more generally (and in a manner that could easily undermine privacy rights
    for ordinary members of the public), the imposition of such duties can only be justified in narrow circumstances where a clear connection between the
    offensive viewpoints and its impact on the public is meaningfully established. It will be argued that this safeguard is not yet realised in law, either
    nationally or supra-nationally.
</p>
<p>
    ____________________________________________________________________
</p>
</div>',
	'scripts_for_layout' => ''
)
$page = 'wragg_abstract'
$subpage = null
$title_for_layout = 'Wragg Abstract'
$content_for_layout = '<div class="abstract col-md-12">
<p>
    <strong>Sporting Figures, 'Societal Duties' and its Effect on their Privacy Rights</strong>
</p>
<p>
    <em> </em>
</p>
<p>
    <em>Robin Barnes, Executive Director, Global Institute for Freedom and Awareness, US</em>
</p>
<p>
    <em>Dr Paul Wragg, Associate Professor in Law, School of Law, University of Leeds</em>
</p>
<p>
    Professional football on both sides of the Atlantic has been plagued recently by parallel controversies in which offensive but privately-expressed thoughts
    of high-profile figures have been publicly disclosed in order to provoke public debate about the morality of those individuals either continuing to hold
    positions of power within the sport or of holding such positions in the future. Yet but for apparent breaches of confidence the evidence informing these
    discussions would not have been publicly known. The potential penalisation of these individuals for the expression of offensive and unpopular ideas in
    their private correspondence says something profound about the limits of rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
</p>
<p>
    In an era of constant and ubiquitous public comment and condemnation on the attitudes and lifestyle choices of 'public figures' - a troublingly imprecise
    term potentially capturing anyone in public-facing employment - the limits of their constitutional rights is a matter of significant concern deserving of
    greater discussion.
</p>
<p>
    This paper considers the philosophical and legal ramifications, in the United States and United Kingdom, of the popular treatment of prominent sporting
    figures as <em>quasi</em> public office holders. The popular reaction to offensive speech by public figures says something profound about the
    constitutional rights of those individuals and the extent to which they are, and should be, limited by the societal duties they are taken to hold on
    account of their prominence as role models.
</p>
<p>
    Our paper argues that in order to avoid a deleterious impact on privacy rights more generally (and in a manner that could easily undermine privacy rights
    for ordinary members of the public), the imposition of such duties can only be justified in narrow circumstances where a clear connection between the
    offensive viewpoints and its impact on the public is meaningfully established. It will be argued that this safeguard is not yet realised in law, either
    nationally or supra-nationally.
</p>
<p>
    ____________________________________________________________________
</p>
</div>'
$scripts_for_layout = ''

include - APP/View/Layouts/default.ctp, line 25
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 948
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 910
View::renderLayout() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 542
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 479
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 954
PagesController::display() - APP/Controller/PagesController.php, line 68
ReflectionMethod::invokeArgs() - [internal], line ??
Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 490
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 191
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 165
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 108

Sporting Figures, 'Societal Duties' and its Effect on their Privacy Rights

Robin Barnes, Executive Director, Global Institute for Freedom and Awareness, US

Dr Paul Wragg, Associate Professor in Law, School of Law, University of Leeds

Professional football on both sides of the Atlantic has been plagued recently by parallel controversies in which offensive but privately-expressed thoughts of high-profile figures have been publicly disclosed in order to provoke public debate about the morality of those individuals either continuing to hold positions of power within the sport or of holding such positions in the future. Yet but for apparent breaches of confidence the evidence informing these discussions would not have been publicly known. The potential penalisation of these individuals for the expression of offensive and unpopular ideas in their private correspondence says something profound about the limits of rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

In an era of constant and ubiquitous public comment and condemnation on the attitudes and lifestyle choices of 'public figures' - a troublingly imprecise term potentially capturing anyone in public-facing employment - the limits of their constitutional rights is a matter of significant concern deserving of greater discussion.

This paper considers the philosophical and legal ramifications, in the United States and United Kingdom, of the popular treatment of prominent sporting figures as quasi public office holders. The popular reaction to offensive speech by public figures says something profound about the constitutional rights of those individuals and the extent to which they are, and should be, limited by the societal duties they are taken to hold on account of their prominence as role models.

Our paper argues that in order to avoid a deleterious impact on privacy rights more generally (and in a manner that could easily undermine privacy rights for ordinary members of the public), the imposition of such duties can only be justified in narrow circumstances where a clear connection between the offensive viewpoints and its impact on the public is meaningfully established. It will be argued that this safeguard is not yet realised in law, either nationally or supra-nationally.

____________________________________________________________________