On the other hand, if you are a Liberal then you get to keep your privacy.
I really don’t like Bill Cosby very much from what I read about him lately. It seems likely that he belongs in prison. Since nothing has been prosecuted and the media is biased, I can’t be certain about things, but that is how they look now.
So I’m not writing this post to defend Cosby or to express any sympathy for him. Even if he is not guilty of the worst possible charges he is quite certainly an immoral man. That seems to be the best case scenario.
But the reason why we know as many details as we do about Bill Cosby is worth some consideration.
Mark Joseph Stern wrote an article for Slate.com entitled, “Why Bill Cosby’s Statements were Revealed.” The subtitle tells it all: “He gave up his privacy when he lectured black Americans.” Get that? His privacy wasn’t violated. Somehow he gave it up.
In many cases, privacy interests constitute the good cause necessary to keep a deposition sealed. Private figures shouldn’t fear that intimate details of their lives will be revealed just because they’re involved in a lawsuit. And even public figures, like politicians and celebrities, maintain some privacy rights in civil suits. Cosby’s overall fame—his TV celebrity, his standup comedy—doesn’t automatically destroy his privacy rights as soon as he’s sued. As U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno explains in his order, that would create perverse incentives, encouraging gossip rags to file frivolous lawsuits just to get ahold of and publish information about celebrities’ private lives.
Instead, Robreno notes that a very specific aspect of Cosby’s public persona is at issue here: Cosby’s decision to don “the mantle of public moralist” and mount the “soap box to volunteer his views on, among other things, childrearing, family life, education, and crime.” As a mere comic, Cosby might maintain most of his privacy rights. But as a “public moralist,” he has “voluntarily narrowed the zone of privacy that he is entitled to claim.”
The judge goes on to say that because Cosby made statements against black criminality, he has “voluntarily” given up his privacy.
Having admitted and explained this evil act, Stern then goes on to claim that what the judge did was entirely legal and non-political. It is like he forgot what he had just written. He calls people who object to this precedent “Cosby defenders.”
It is nauseating. He has completely confirmed the worst the “Cosby defenders” could claim and he acts as if he has refuted them by calling one “remarkably uninformed.” They seem completely informed on the basis of Stern’s own argument.
The bottom line is: if you have secrets then you had better not gain any kind of notable forum expressing political views that our ruling class doesn’t like. Just keep quiet because, in the age of domestic spying and zero internet privacy, you will be targeted. Anything that can be revealed to hurt you will be revealed.
On the other hand, if you’re a “mere comic” who loves gay “marriage” and supports sleazy liberal politicians, you will get that extra zone of privacy that other people used to expect. You’re untouchable.
And if you are a known conservative celebrity, I would get ready for more civil suits—anything to get you to answer embarrassing questions under oath. Because none of that stuff is going to stay private.
I hate writing a post like this because I end up transmitting the ruling class’s message of intimidation. They want you to be afraid and shut up. And you may have reason to fear. Think about it.
On the other hand, they often also want conservatives to believe that they are a “part of society,” and that the system is neutral. It’s not. They hate you. They want to hurt you. They will try if they can.
Be careful out there.