The right to privacy

In the five seconds it's taken you to read so far, someone, somewhere has posted a video on Youtube. Quite likey, this video is enough to make the person in the video look like a jackass. Slightly less likely, this video could be one of the growing number of YouTube series that have seemingly taken over the internet. In all likelihood, the video is harmless. Every so often, though, a video comes across the internet that, while it may not have a darker purpose, may certainly have far darker effects. In the case of one particular video, those effects can cost a man his reputation.

The video I refer to is the short-lived video allegedly depicting Mets superstar Pedro Martinez taking part in a cockfight in his home country of the Dominican Republic. This is not a condemnation of Martinez, nor is a condemnation of cockfighting. There are enough of those floating around the internet that adding one more doesn't make a great degree of sense. Furthermore, I don't condemn Martinez - his life, his time, his decision of how he spends it. Cockfighting is a legal and accepted aspect of Dominican culture - we find it barbaric, but who are we to judge? What I'm here to condemn instead are the people in the media - both the professional journalists, as well as the amateurs like myself who post to blogs, or post to Youtube - for invading the private life of an individual.

Ultimately, whether Martinez participated in a cockfight is immaterial. I don't know whether he did - I wasn't there, I never saw the Youtube video and, to be completely honest, I don't care. That being said, however, there is another, more important question that I have to ask myself: namely, "Is it my business?". The answer, if I look deep into my soul and answer honestly, is no.

So why, then, is it being reported on. Obviously, the professional journalist argues that the public wants to know, and that the public has an innate RIGHT to know. Were this issue to be something that actually has an effect on the population, I would agree with this argument. This is not such an issue. It's a case of one individual using his own time, in his own country, to engage one way or the other in a passtime that is not just legal, but is a cultural norm in that country. This is not the business of the general public.

Furthermore, what of the consequences? Should a man guilty of no crime be punished because of his actions? Most rational men would suggest that such an action would be an abberration of justice - yet this is precisely what some animal rights activist groups are suggesting. Martinez' alleged actions were not illegal, and were not opposed to any sort of code of conduct required from his contract with the New York Mets, and yet it's been suggested by some that a harsh suspension should be enacted against him - on the basis of a Youtube video, and a profession that deems the invasion of privacy to be a valid passtime in the name of filling public curiosity.

The damage to individual's reputations, however, are not the most severe reprecussions of this sort of journalism. This time last year, we saw a different victim of the same: Michael Vick. Again, let me say that I do not speak to Mr. Vick's innocence or guilt, but only of facts. Vick's rights as a defendant in a criminal trial were flagrantly violated the minute that the uproar in the media over his actions began. Every defendant in a criminal trial is guaranteed the right to appear before an unbiased and objective jury of their peers. In many cases, this right results in the sequestration of the jury prior to trial to ensure that the media cannot influence their decisions. In Vick's case, I ask where this was even possible. Every potential juror in the United States had ready access to the facts (and suppositions) of the case, as well as the commentary. Most declared Vick to be guilty before the formality of the trial had even commenced. This isn't a trial by impartial jury, it's a trial by media. A trial as was never envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, nor by the Fathers of Confederation here in Canada. A trial as is not sanctioned by law. A trial that is the equivalent of the gladitorial trials as were done in ancient Rome. A trial that is, definitionally, an abberration of justice.

In conclusion I ask only this - that we remember that our nation is built on foundations of equality of man, human rights (including the right to privacy), and justice for all. Perhaps it's time for our media to remember the same.