Friday, May 27, 2011

the love effect

today's Gospel: John 15.12-17

The media is full of reports about the 'player' who took out an injunction, whose effect was defeated by twitter. A few questions arise. Did he actually have the affair? If he did, is it really any of our business? Is the fact that twitter now allows us to gossip on a global scale to be celebrated? What of his family? The courts granted the injunction to protect their privacy & must have thought it was something they were entitled to - is our responsibility to obey the law only real up to the point where it can be enforced? What of respect? What of decency? What of love? In today's Gospel Jesus tells us to love one another. Is there really any love in all this?


  1. From Shar Lewis:
    still can't post. Here you go......

    a few points
    * The "super-injunction" that the "player" took out to protect his *good* name (cough!) is a legal mandate only allowed to the very rich as the cost is prohibitive for normal folk. It impairs the journalists ethos of free speech... and reporting in the so-called public interest. I'm not interested but there you go. The Twitter thing basically allows yes, to gossip on a global scale, but in this instance (and others recently) has underlined the basic unfairness of the super-injunction as a tool for the very rich to get away with bad behaviour. Perhaps it should be said that the likes of Twitter are providing a moral compass by not letting bad behaviour be got away with.

    * in terms of respect & decency perhaps you didn't catch the effing and blinding that the journalist who pressed the door buzzer at Mrs Players house got in full flood.

    * If people who take out super-injunctions just kept their peckers in their pants then the fall-out when these puffed up balloons of unfair legality get popped would be totally negated !

    oh and there are talks afoot to get these super injunctions stopped and change the law so that fairer for all

  2. Hi Shar,

    thx for your thoughts.

    Not sure that 'fairer' comes into it - the media only hound the super-rich anyway. My personal opinion that it is purient interest dressed up as public interest. Like yourself, i have no interest - couldn't even tell you what team the player is on. But public interest doesn't mean that the public is interested, but that the public's interest is served by the information being made known. Not really applicable in these cases. As to twitter providing a moral compass ... again, if these people weren't famous, no one would care. As I see it the morality of the players behaviour (which naturally is not something I would condone) is a separate issue to the gossip firestorm which surrounds it.