US media "ethics free" on public vs private life?

Because I'm terribly frugal ( and both Newsweek and Time let me subscribe for $25 a year--each--I read them both.

I generally skim the biographies of candidates. I feel I should know bits and pieces, but I don't want to marry the men--I just want bits and pieces.

Skimming season has started.

At one time, when divorce had a lot more of a negative social stigma than it does today, everyone's divorce records were sealed (speaking of the US only here..). The only thing that was releasable was that a divorce had occured and the date that it was final.

As things progressed and the stigma died down divorce records became matters of open public record. I can walk into the County Court House here and walk into a room where a copy every divorce record in the last 3 years is there for public consumption. If I want an older record I look it up in an index, fill out a short form with the appropriate info and hand it to the clerk and I come back tomorrow and pick it up.

As Walter's post alludes to - this is a part of "open government". A marriage, or the ending of a marriage, is a government regulated activity that requires activity on the part of government officials. We as citizens have pushed for the right to be informed of what actions our government officials take on our behalf. This is what ya get in the end.

Apparently a few members don't like the idea of the same rights for all, which is what I posted. At what point did I say anything was ethical, down to raiding your garbage? I never did.

Get this, we do not live in an ethical society. We live in a legal society that decides for us what is ok and what is not. This it reality, of today. Legality decides. Ethics lose every time, when arguing what is right for society. Tell me where I am wrong!

I will not fight a losing battle. I remain firm in my word that some decide on professions that make them more exposed to raiding of garbage cans, interviews with friends from school days, or anything to discredit their character. None of us are so perfect, but our flaws can come to haunt us.

Is it ethically right? I doubt it. Is it legal? Absolutely!! You want to fight this battle, then deal with the people who make our laws. I didn't. Did you?

Laws are made by our representatives = derive from our vote.

Fishin' - how on earth would you make a case for the details of another's marriage dissolution to be anyone else's business?

I see you agree with me Wildflower - the invasion of privacy at the level being discussed is unethical.

He didn't make that case, Our Dear Wabbit, he pointed out that it's a governmental transaction, and, as such, forms a record open to public scrutiny . . .

Indeed! Personally I don't see where it should be anyone else's business but this is the system we have. IMO, the judge in LA should never have ordered the records unsealed.

Unfortunately we're now at a point where if you have a record sealed people automatically assume that you have something significant to hide.

I'd much prefer a system where government could be entrusted and relied upon to maintain people's privacy. For some reason we don't seem to be able to put together that sort of system. People don't trust the government and government employees (at all levels) have demonstrated on numerous occassions that they can't really be trusted.

For pity's sake! The damn government MAKES the laws!!! They could make family court records confidential!!!!

Yes, they could. However there are, IMO, enough people in this country that believe that making the records confidential would allow people (including government officials) to hide illegal activities from the public and they fight any attempt to limit public access to any/all government records.

A politician could vote to change the law to make the records confidential and then they'd have all of those people voting against them and they'd elect someone else who would work to repeal the law.

If medical records can be held confidential, if adoption records can be held confidential, if sperm donors or contraction of AIDS can be held confidential, there is no reasonable rationale that something as sensitive as divorce records cannot be held confidential unless the principles agree to open them. There is no compelling reason I can think of that anyone should have a right to know the details of your divorce if you wish to keep the matter private. Without your consent I should be able to determine only the date that you were legally divorced.

I don't see how that is different from anything else we are able to keep private.

Dlowan,

You have hit on one of my personal problems directly-- Kudos, regrettably

One the one hand we have a person who belives in things which cannot be shown to exist-- Gods--WMDs.

On the other hand we have a person with absolutely no standards. Support our troops-- deny them reasonable wages. Proclaim democracy--vote for the "Patriots Act".

Do not envy the 1/2 way intelligent American voter We are seriously stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It was bad enough when only Tweedlededum and Tweedldedee were running. Now we have a choice between a Christian Ayatollah and an absolute Anarchist.

I have no idea of what to do in November and I fear for the democratic experiment

So I am afraid that when push comes to shove "personal life decisions" that are none of my business become my business .