We can judge public figures' private lives because we are entitled to opinions, says Noah Robson

Summary

The debate centers on the public's right to judge the private lives of public figures once that information becomes public. The speaker argues that while privacy is important, the public should not be denied the right to form opinions on private matters when they impact public roles, using the Profumo affair as an example. They refute the notion that the debate supports press intrusion and emphasize the importance of distinguishing between private and public matters, concluding that individuals should have the freedom to judge based on their values and beliefs.

Takeaways

• 🗣️ The debate is about the right to judge the private lives of public figures when such information becomes public, not about the right to know or the methods used to obtain that information.
• 🎯 The motion asserts that if private information about a public figure is known, individuals have the right to form an opinion and make judgments based on that information.
• 🚫 The debate does not propose that public figures should not have privacy or that we should invade their privacy; it focuses on the principle of judging once information is public.
• 👤 The speaker emphasizes that the right to judge is a fundamental human right and an aspect of basic human instinct to form opinions about others.
• 🌐 The speaker argues that the public has a role in judging the credibility and integrity of public figures, especially when their private actions could impact public trust and decision-making.
• 📚 The example of the Profumo affair is used to illustrate how the public's judgment of a public figure's private life can have significant political consequences.
• 🏛️ The speaker acknowledges the importance of privacy for public figures but argues that this does not negate the public's right to judge once information is known.
• 🤝 The debate is not about supporting unethical press methods but about the right to form an opinion once information is in the public domain.
• 🔍 The speaker challenges the opposition's potential argument that privacy is a human right, suggesting that the infringement of privacy does not negate the right to judge.
• 🤔 The practical difficulty of distinguishing between private and public matters is highlighted, arguing that it's unrealistic to draw a clear line for what can be judged.
• 💭 The conclusion emphasizes that the right to judge is about having an opinion in one's mind, not necessarily about sharing or acting on that opinion.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the debate?

The main topic of the debate is whether the public has a right to judge the private lives of public figures.

What are the three key definitions provided in the script?

The three key definitions provided are: 'private life' as a person's personal relationships, interests, and activities distinct from their public or professional life; 'public figure' as someone who has achieved fame, prominence, or notoriety within a society; and the proposition that the public has a right to judge the private lives of public figures.

What is the speaker's stance on the right to privacy for public figures?

The speaker acknowledges that public figures have a right to privacy but argues that if information about their private lives becomes public, the public has a right to judge that information.

What example is used to illustrate the importance of judging the private lives of public figures?

The speaker uses the example of the Profumo affair, where the private life of a senior politician became public knowledge and affected public trust in the government.

What is the speaker's argument against the opposition's potential points?

The speaker argues that even if the opposition brings up issues like press intrusion, phone hacking, and unethical methods of gathering stories, the debate is about the right to judge, not the methods used to obtain the information.

Who are the three speakers introduced for the opposition side?

The three speakers introduced for the opposition side are Chris Collins, a fourth-year classic student at Corpus Christie College; Lord Folks, an English Barrister and sitting Peer who is the chairman of IPSO; and Sharon GAA, a social media influencer and former Love Island contestant.

What is the speaker's view on the practicality of distinguishing between private and public matters?

The speaker believes that it is practically impossible to establish a clear line between private and public matters, making it unrealistic to categorize aspects of one's life into public and private sections.

What is the speaker's final argument for the proposition side?

The speaker's final argument is that voting for the proposition side does not require supporting unethical methods of the press or believing that celebrities should not be entitled to privacy. It simply requires believing in the right to have an opinion about public figures' private lives when such information is publicized.

What is the speaker's opinion on the relevance of private information to public roles?

The speaker believes that if private information is relevant to a public figure's role, it can and should affect how the public views them, especially if it damages their credibility.

How does the speaker address the potential moral implications of judging private lives?

The speaker acknowledges the moral implications but argues that the right to privacy has already been infringed upon by the public disclosure of information, and that does not prevent the public from upholding their right to judge.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ The Right to Judge Public Figures' Private Lives

The speaker introduces the debate on whether the public has the right to judge the private lives of public figures. They clarify that the debate is not about the right to privacy of public figures, the right to know about their private lives, or the obligation to judge them constantly. Instead, it focuses on the principle of having the right to judge if such information becomes public. The speaker emphasizes the importance of this right, suggesting that it is an argument about the freedom to hold opinions. They also introduce the esteemed speakers for the opposition, setting the stage for a nuanced discussion on the balance between public scrutiny and personal privacy.

05:01

👁️ Privacy vs. Public Judgment: The Debate Unfolds

This paragraph delves into the necessity of judging the private lives of public figures when such information is relevant to their public role. The speaker uses the example of the Profumo affair to illustrate how the public's judgment can impact trust in political figures. They argue that refusing to judge based on private information that affects public trust is misguided. The speaker also addresses potential opposition arguments, such as the invasion of privacy and the unethical methods used by the press to obtain information. They emphasize that the debate is about the right to form an opinion once information is public, not about endorsing intrusive press practices. The speaker concludes by discussing the impracticality of drawing a clear line between private and public matters, suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect people not to judge others based on their private lives once they become public knowledge.

10:03

📣 Concluding Remarks on the Right to Form Opinions

In the concluding paragraph, the speaker summarizes the argument for the proposition, emphasizing that the right to judge the private lives of public figures does not necessitate support for the press's invasive methods or the belief that celebrities should forfeit their privacy. The speaker asserts that the crux of the debate is the individual's right to form an opinion on public figures' private lives once that information is made public. They argue that voting for the proposition does not imply a disregard for privacy but an acknowledgment of the individual's autonomy in forming personal judgments based on available information.

Keywords

💡Privacy

Privacy refers to the state or condition of limited access to a person's personal information, relationships, and activities. In the context of the video, it is a central theme as the debate revolves around the public's right to judge the private lives of public figures. The script discusses the importance of privacy for public figures and the potential consequences when their private lives become public knowledge, as illustrated by the reference to the Profumo affair.

💡Public Figures

Public figures are individuals who have achieved fame, prominence, or notoriety within a society. The script defines public figures and delves into the debate about whether the public has the right to judge the private lives of these individuals. The discussion is particularly relevant when considering the impact of their private actions on their public role and the public's perception of them.

💡Debate

A debate is a formal discussion on a particular topic, often with opposing arguments. The video script outlines a debate on the right to judge the private lives of public figures. The debate is structured with opening statements, arguments from both sides, and a focus on the principle of whether the public has this right, irrespective of the methods used to uncover private information.

💡Opposition

In the context of the video, the opposition refers to the side arguing against the motion that the public has a right to judge the private lives of public figures. The script introduces the speakers for the opposition, suggesting that their arguments may involve discussing the ethics of press intrusion and the importance of privacy.

💡Judge

To judge means to form an opinion or conclusion about something or someone. The script emphasizes the right of individuals to judge the private lives of public figures when such information becomes public. The debate is about the principle of judgment, not the methods used to obtain the information or the public's actions based on that judgment.

💡Ethical

Ethical pertains to moral principles that govern or inform a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. The script mentions the ethical considerations of how the press and media obtain and report on the private lives of public figures, contrasting the unethical methods with the public's right to form opinions based on the information.

💡Reputation

Reputation is the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something. The script discusses how the revelation of a public figure's private life can affect their reputation, using the Profumo affair as an example where the public's judgment of the private actions led to a loss of trust in the government.

💡Credibility

Credibility refers to the quality of being trusted or believed. In the video, the speaker argues that the public's judgment of a public figure's private life can impact their credibility, especially when it comes to their ability to perform their public role effectively.

💡Opinion

An opinion is a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on facts or knowledge of the subject. The script argues that having an opinion about the private lives of public figures is a fundamental human right, even if one disapproves of the methods used to obtain the information.

💡Human Right

A human right is a right inherent to all human beings, regardless of who they are or where they come from. The script mentions privacy as a human right but also discusses the conflict between the right to privacy and the right to form an opinion about public figures' private lives when that information is made public.

💡Principle

A principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior. The debate in the video is framed around the principle of whether the public has the right to judge the private lives of public figures, independent of the circumstances under which the information is revealed.

Highlights

The debate is about the right to judge the private lives of public figures, not about the ethics of how information is obtained.

Public figures have a right to privacy, but this does not negate the public's right to form judgments based on information that becomes public.

The motion is not advocating for the invasion of privacy but for the right to have an opinion when private information is revealed.

The importance of judging private lives is exemplified by historical events like the Profumo affair, which impacted public trust and government credibility.

Judging private lives can be crucial when it affects the public role or decisions of public figures.

The debate acknowledges the need for public figures to maintain some level of privacy despite their public life.

The opposition may argue against press intrusion and unethical methods of obtaining information, but this is not the focus of the debate.

Being against unethical methods of obtaining information does not mean one cannot judge the information once it is public.

The debate is about the individual's right to form an opinion, not about sharing or acting on that opinion.

The motion implies that privacy has already been infringed upon, suggesting that this should not prevent the exercise of the right to judge.

The practical difficulty of drawing a clear line between what is private and public in the lives of public figures.

The impossibility of categorizing every aspect of a public figure's life into public and private sections for judgment purposes.

Voting for the proposition does not require support for unethical press methods or a belief in the public's right to know about all aspects of a public figure's private life.

The crux of the debate is the individual's right to have an opinion on publicized private details of public figures.

The debate challenges the notion that privacy can be a blanket right that prevents judgment of public figures when their private lives become known.

The importance of recognizing the human right to have an opinion, even if it is formed in response to private information about public figures.

Transcripts

but regardless of whether you think the

information about celebrities private

lives ought to be revealed it does not

prevent you and should not prevent you

from being prepared and insisting on the

right to judge such information should

you come to learn of

it and with that I open the debate uh

this house believes we have a right to

judge the private lives of public

figures thank you madam president for

giving me the honor of speaking in this

debate and thank you as well to you and

the rest of the officers for what has

been a brilliant

term tonight's motion perhaps more than

most others debated in this chamber

requires an extremely careful analysis

of the question itself before delving

into any specific arguments in fact it

may be easier if I first of all make

clear what it is we are not

debating we are not debating whether

this house believes public figures don't

have a right to privacy few would be

foolish enough to propose such a motion

we are not debating whether we have a

right to know about the private lives of

public figures and we're also not

debating whether we have a right to

judge the private lives of all public

figures all the time no tonight we are

specifically considering the question of

whether we have a right to judge the

private lives of public figures as a

matter of principle in and of itself the

proposition is not suggesting that we

all ought to go around with it being our

mission to uncover as many Secrets as

possible about every single person who

could conceivably be a public figure

instead we're simply arguing that if

information about the private lives of

public figures does make its way into

the public domain which is what has been

implied by the question then regardless

of your opinions on the way which you

might have done so you as an

individual have a right to make a

judgment on the information that you're

presented with it is fundamentally an

argument about your right to have an

opinion but before I delve into the

reasons why all of you sitting here

tonight should be allowed to have an

opinion it falls upon me to introduce

the esteemed speakers on the opposition

this evening opening the case for the

other side will be Chris Collins a

fourth year classic student at Corpus

Christie college and our esteemed

secretary here at the Oxford Union Chris

has worked exceptionally hard this time

to put on some fantastic socials

including the brilliant Casino Royal

ball which I'm sure you'd all agree have

been very enjoyable now I'm sure he'll

give an excellent speech for side

opposition tonight no doubt focusing on

aspects such as elusive secret tactics

attempts to disparage the reputation of

others and even potential hacking and

then when he gets part of his election

campaign strategy I can't wait to hear

what he has to say about privacy

speaking second is the right honorable

Lord folks KC an English Barrister and

sitting Peer who is currently the

chairman of ipso the independent press

standards organization Lord folks was

educated at Jesus College where he

remains an honorary fellow so it's a

pleasure to welcome him back to Oxford

tonight although he now sits as a

crossbencher in the House of Lords he

was previously a conservative peer and

indeed a member of the government within

the justice department until he resigned

from his position in 2016 out of protest

when a certain Liz truss was appointed

as the new secretary of state for

justice given the career path that has

since followed for her he clearly has an

excellent judge of character which I do

find somewhat ironic considering that's

exactly what he's telling our members

not to Aspire to

tonight finally we have Sharon GAA a

social media influencer and former love

violent contestant in 2021 beyond that

Sharon is also an ambassador for the

domestic abuse charity Refuge as as she

set up her own organization girls know

politics to encourage young women to

participate in politics and as even an

ex civil servant having worked across

multiple government departments

including the Department of Health in

the height of the co pandemic Sharon is

therefore very well placed to speak in

this debate having seen firsthand what

it's like when private relationships not

only become public knowledge but are

televised for the world to see before

being followed by a dramatic recoupling

but I'll let her talk more about what it

was like having to work with Matt

hanock regardless these are your

speakers Madam president and they are

most

[Applause]

welcome so a couple of definitions

firstly private life

the Orford dictionary defines private

life to be a person's personal

relationships interests and activities

as distinct from their public or

professional life a public figure

meanwhile is somebody who has achieved

Fame prominence or notoriety within a

society it's not as some people's social

media presence might have you believe

merely a case of putting the label in

your Instagram bio with those

definitions in mind I want to begin with

my first of three arguments put simply

it is that what the motion is actually

saying is that if we happen to become

aware of say a senior politician's

extramarital affair with a 19-year-old

woman in the mid1 1960s we're entitled

to have an opinion on this and to make a

judgment on it helpfully enough such an

example does indeed exist with the

perfumo affair giving us one of the most

famous examples of the private life of a

public figure becoming widely shared

knowledge in that incident which

critically reduced The credibility and

integrity not only of John prumo but

also the wider government at the time

the public rightfully made a judgment

that they could not trust such a group

of people to be in charge of the country

and therefore less than two years later

they voted them out it's this sort of

example which shows how vital it is that

we do indeed judge private lives when

such information is relevant to the

public facing role that someone has it

can and should have a genuine effect on

the way we view those in the public eye

especially those who are involved in

decisions which will directly affect us

in fact I assert that anybody who would

refuse to make a judgment on someone's

character off the basis of such

information which damages their

credibility ought to be considered a

concern themselves with their insistance

on following some moral code regarding

privacy blinding them to potentially

critical information about other

people secondly and as I alluded to at

the beginning of my speech it's

absolutely vital this house realizes

what precisely is being asked for them

of course it would be ludicrous to

suggest that celebrities especially

those who Rose to fame without any

initial ambition of doing so should

suddenly be expected to withdraw their

right to privacy once they reach a

certain level of stardom far from it in

fact if anything given so much of the

rest of their life is spent in full

public view they more than anyone need

to spend part of their time out of the

Limelight I expect too that the

opposition will attempt to appeal to

your sympathies asking how you would

feel if your private lives were known to

the masses and I won't argue with them

on that point I fully recognize that

there are parts of mine and I'm sure

many other people's lives they would

much rather remain private but

regardless of whether you think the

information about celebrities private

lives ought to be revealed it does not

prevent you and should not prevent you

from being prepared and insisting on the

right to judge such information should

you come to learn of it arguments about

press intrusion phone hacking and many

other inappropriate methods of gathering

stories will no doubt be pointed to as

evidence that public figures should not

be subject to such measures but this is

not what the debate is about yes of

course everyone should rightly expect

that their private lives are not

regularly intruded on but it's frankly

absurd to suggest that people should

expect others not to judge them for what

they do or do not

do go on your accep your side encourage

all the work of the daily male and the

son encourage the intrusions and the

phone hackings and the obsession and the

pop and follows around children and

people and rles through their trashes so

my point is you can be totally against

all the horrible press methods that the

likes of the daily male might use to get

such stories and use the paparazzi and

all this but the debate is about the

right to judge it and to suggest you

can't judge something what you could you

can be totally against the fact that

these these Outlets use such awful

methods but you I find it very very

difficult to suggest you can be against

something and your own opinion on these

stories once they've come to

light because it's not only basic human

instinct to have an opinion it's a human

right and to those who might suggest

that privacy is also a human right I

make the point that the worning of the

motion implies that the right to privacy

has already been infringed upon that

should then prevent us from upholding

another right though as the famous

saying goes two wrongs don't make a

right finally I want to end with a

practical point and that is how if you

do vote for side opposition tonight it's

virtually impossible to actually

establish where the line is between

private and public matters some of you

will remember that I did of course offer

you a definition earlier on and I'll

remind you of it once more private life

is a person's personal relationships

interests and activities as distinct

from their public or professional life

but let's just consider that last aspect

for a moment as distinct from their

public or professional life how exactly

are we supposed to draw that line some

things may seem obviously private at

first glance the medical records of a

person say but even that could

conceivably be argued to be important

information if it refers to for example

a politician because it may affect how

you choose to vote just look at the

situation with the two main candidates

in the US presidential race at the

moment the point is even if in theory it

sounds like a moral idea deal to be a

perfect person and not to judge people's

private lives it's actual implementation

it's simply impossible to put into

practice there is no neat way of

categorizing every aspect of one's life

into public and private sections so

attempting to set out which specific

parts we are and are not allowed to make

judgments on it's just

unrealistic and so to sum up to vote

proposition tonight you do not have to

believe that celebrities should not be

entitled to privacy you do not have to

support the at times unethical immoral

and shameful methods that the Press uses

to get such stories about people's

private lives you don't even have to

believe that we should ever know about a

public figure's private life all you

have to believe is that should it come

about that details of someone's private

life are publicized to the general

public then you as an individual with

your own thoughts your own values and

your own beliefs are entitled to make a

judgment on them and their actions to

put it simply you just need to believe

that you're allowed to have an opinion

not one that you share with others or

even act on as a result just one that

you form in your own mind by yourself in

private thank you very

much