INSURRECTION/ SP MPs rebel, drag Gjati to vote on territorial division!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

2026-10-01 15:53:00Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA YLLI MANJANI
Star Manjani

There is a big misconception in the age of social media. Once a person becomes famous, we think that their private life also becomes public property.

But it's not like that. It shouldn't be like that.

The case of intimate videos circulating these days, featuring composer Adrian Hila and several singers, is a good opportunity to have a debate that goes beyond specific individuals. Where does the public's right to know end and where does the human right to have a private life begin?

First, we need to make a fundamental distinction.

Being a public figure does not mean being a person without privacy.

Adrian Hila and the singers in question are public figures because of their artistic activity. Public is their art, their creativity, their professional activity, their artistic success or failure.

But this does not automatically make their sex life public.

The European Court of Human Rights, in its jurisprudence, recognizes that even persons who are very well-known publicly have a legitimate expectation of protection of private life. 

In today's Europe, you are severely punished for violating privacy. Public interest is not the same as public curiosity.

The public can be extremely curious to see an intimate video of an artist. They can click on it millions of times. They can comment on it. They can share it. 

But the large number of curious people does not turn it (curiosity) into public interest.

Strasbourg has stated very directly that the public's right to information, while essential in a democratic society, cannot be reduced to the public's thirst for knowledge of the private lives of others. This is particularly important when it comes to sexual intimacy.

A photo from a public event is one thing. A public statement is another. A romantic relationship that a person decides to make public is something else.

But a sex video made in a private space is at the core of what Article 8 of the European Convention protects as private life. 

The Court has also emphasized that images can contain extremely personal and intimate information and that the right to control the use of the image is part of the protection of personality. 

Here our society must ask a not-so-pleasant question about mass curiosity: 
Do we have the right to see something private just because someone else had the opportunity to put it online?

I think this is the crux of the debate.

Filming yourself in private does not mean giving consent for the video to be published.

Consent to a sexual act is not consent to its publication. Consent to recording is not consent to distribution.

The fact that material has already been published somewhere on the internet does not eliminate a person's right to privacy.

On the contrary, Strasbourg has specifically treated the non-consensual publication of intimate images as an interference with private life, with serious consequences for personal dignity and integrity. 

What about the media?

The media has the right and great duty to inform the public.

But the media is not simply a distributor of what the public wants to see.

It is also a filter.

A professional and ethical journalist should ask not "Will people click on this?", but "What public interest does publishing this serve?"

These are two completely different questions.

If the video proves corruption, abuse of office, conflict of interest, or another issue that really affects community life, then there may be a serious debate about the public interest.

But if it simply shows who and how an artist had sexual relations with, then we have much more public curiosity than public interest.

This is the debate. The argument "They are public figures" is not enough.

Public figure is not a status that deprives a person of privacy.

It is a status that can expand the scope of criticism and public interest regarding what is related to the person's public activity.

We are undoubtedly living in difficult times for privacy. We are creating a society where technology is increasingly blurring the line between what is private and what becomes public.

A phone can record everything.

A person can copy anything.

An app can deliver everything.

And a virtual crowd can see everything.

But the technical ability to see something does not create a moral or legal right to see it.

This is a point we need to understand.

Today it's an artist's intimate videos. Tomorrow it could be someone else's intimate photo. The day after tomorrow it could be a private conversation.

And if we accept the principle that "if it's made public, then the public has the right to see it," we have essentially destroyed the concept of privacy.

Privacy exists precisely to protect what the individual has not given to the public. Otherwise, even sex would be done openly...

But to close with video artists, I say that the public is the art, not their bed.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×