private vs public

would you read someones diary if it was wide open? fully accessible, almost public you could say. would you really pick it up and read it? okay. lets say you pick it up and you see the writer has created a code or has left out names. would you really spend that extra effort and time just to find out who they're talking about?

how about if you don't even really talk to the person who's diary you are reading? do you think you have the right to know what they feel and their raw emotions? that you deserve to know it? after all they were foolish enough to leave their diary on the ground.

what i've written above, isn't the exact issue that i want to talk about, but certainly relates to it. in fact, in a way its an analogy for what i'm about to discuss.

as you know there are many different websites on the internet; especially lots of websites, like blogspot, which contain hundreds of thousands of peoples' personal thoughts and opinions. now you may argue that these blogs are public domain because they are on the internet, but are they really?

legally, things that are posted onto the internet are generally available to the public. however does that mean that you can ruthlessly search for someone's blog and then feel as if you have the right to pore over their personal thoughts and feelings and then discuss it with your friends?

where do we draw the line between public and private? is there not an important distinction to be made between talking about public and private legally and talking about it morally? of course you may argue, 'well if you don't want people to read it then don't write it', but if that's your expectation then are you not also suggesting that 'if you don't want anyone to hear it don't say it?' or 'if you don't want anyone to see it don't do it?' does this then not lead to the overall suggestion that we are not free to do anything secretive or private at all and should therefore all become introverted and not express ourselves to anyone?

i know that what i have just said may seem a bit far fetched based on the original suggestion, but it is something to seriously consider if your main argument is reliant upon what is above.

even if this isn't the case. lets say you find the person's blog and read it, should you then be at license to discuss it with others? surely when we discuss things with others we are either subconsciously or consciously altering them to an extent, adding our own bias and making inferences based upon what has been written? therefore are you possibly changing what was originally said or meant, because you may not have understood it, into some other completely untrue statement?

furthermore, if those people and their discussions of your feelings and emotions get to the point where you feel ashamed to feel the way you do, unable to express yourself through your blog and forced to change the url has it gone too far? should there be some penalization for making people feel unable to express themselves in their chosen way? if i am not mistaken that is indeed and infringement of human rights.

why is the internet becoming such an abused medium? where people think that they deserve to judge, criticise and speculate everything that is on there because after all, it is public domain. if i were to want to keep a diary in this day and age and with the technologies available to us, i don't see why the internet would not be the most effective medium to use. it can't get lost and allows you to quickly enter your thoughts and then support them by a vast array of pictures available to you. but i would think twice about it now after seeing what some people do with the information found on blogs.

just because we have access to something, does not mean we should exploit it.