Read the great debate of 蔡子強 江丕盛 梁文道 both timely and untimely.
Timely because their debates are worth reading indeed. Untimely because I am having two imminent fights with nanotechnology and probability on the coming Tuesday.
Thanks to Mr. She and Mr. Ho's postings which caught my serious attention.
(My Sheer subjective opinion)
Obviously, 梁文道is the only one who knows logic in the field of Philosophy whereas the other two need some logical training. The only thing I couldn't agree is that the point that ALL the people who look at the pictures are "guilty".
As long as "Ying Wong" claims that they are fake AND no victims are standing out, it's not about looking or not at public figure's stolen privacy anymore. Public would regard the fake pics as jokes. It's a matter of degree of joking.
The people who look at the pictures should not be associated with the word "guilty" BEFORE "Ying Wong" admit making false claiming of fake pictures or BEFORE anyone of the victims reported a theft of private properties. If all the pictures were fake, why should the people watching fake pictures as jokes be accused guilty?
What about the cynical American comics which depicted politicians or stars? Are the people reading and laughing about it all guilty?
It's neither their privacy nor property as long as it's fake. As stars are selling their images for money, the fake pics will just be jokes on their images. As Ying Wong" claims that they are fake, it's not surprising more and more people curious about the jokes. Since then it becomes a matter of degree of acceptability of different cultures on jokes. (Although I don't agree with jokes of making fake naked pictures. )
Until someone stands out or the public knows that it's a theft, there would be another real debate on whether looking at people's privacy is immoral.
P.S. Neither Edison Chen nor Gill has to apologize (but certainly I don't agree with EDC). Gill can only be accused of being fake in some particular events. THIS IS A THEFT.