John Terry lives a public life whereby details that can damage reputation can actually ruin his livelihood. Already, before all the details have been revealed of the affair, there is already a question mark over the concept of John Terry continuing his captaincy of England football team. To have this stripped away from him due to reputation is appalling. The media can ruin a once sparkling career by publishing these details. They should not be allowed to publish details that will have such a damaging effect.

But someone is that public eye a bad reputation becomes more of a punishment than the sentence he has to serve. It is unjust that he suffer more for something that most people deal with privately.

Clinton broke the law by having an affair with an employee(a woman of his employ) and countless other alleged affairs that leaned on sexual harassment.

Terry has not broken the law by committing adultery, he has offended a lot of people. He did not commit adultery under false pretexts. His situation should not come under the jurisdiction under which adultery is illegal in the United Kingdom.

It is not merely details that will ruin his career, it is who he is. He should have thought about the consequences of his reputation before he had an affair. He only has himself to blame.

This argument could also be used by pedophile regarding Sarah's Law. This is the law that allows parents access to the information of any local pedophile. Whilst these pedophiles may claim right to privacy, the argument is that they committed a wrongful act, and they shall live with the consequences. They lose the right to argue about privacy.

Bill Clinton couldn't deal with it privately.

If it isn't illegal then why is there a judge granting and retracting injunctions?

it is not just John Terry's privacy that needs to be dealt with here; he has a family which contains children Terry has a wife and a set of three year old twins. It is not fair on them that their broken lives are splattered across the front pages of all the tabloids. They had no choice in the situation that John Terry has crudely placed them in. So whilst we may not want to protect his privacy, the privacy of his children and his wife should be taken into consideration. Weighing all of their privacy against the media's right to make a profit, the injunction should have been upheld.

The judge removed the injunction. Word of Terry's affair with his best friend/team-mate's steady girlfriend is out. The reputation slandering/vilifying bit is over.

The rest are details.

If the family is considerably hurt then they should be granted some sort of legal compensation. But keep in mind that sooner or later they would find out and dealing with this in the privacy of their home could be worse.

At least they aren't in the Woods' family situation , where the wife found out about an affair and smashed a windshield in a violent rage and then it went public.

Domestic disputes/violence can be fatal and in cases of spouse disloyalty the situation must be brought into light so nobody gets more hurt than necessary.

If the courts would have upheld the injunction, England would have had a better chance at winning the World Cup 2010 this summer in South Africa. Currently, team moral will be dampened. Trust will be at an all time low within the team. The uncertainty of the captaincy will not have a positive effect on the team either. We are always told that winning teams need stable leadership; how is England to have this with Terry’s reputation in tatters and team spirit and cohesion at an all time low?

Laws cannot be altered in order for a football team to have a (slightly) higher chance of winning the World Cup. This is especially the case with something as important and sensitive as human rights!! There is a balance to achieve when weighing up human rights. We cannot allow unlimited freedom of expression whilst harming everyone’s privacy. On the other hand we cannot have unlimited privacy in order to achieve freedom of expression. The line needs to be drawn and we have given the well educated judges to achieve that balance. Judges will take into consideration a variety of factors and look at the severity of a variety of different scenarios. They will put the situation into context. A good judge would never consider the effect his decision would have on the World Cup.

The thing is though, his children are not at fault and for them to have their father exposed is a terrible ordeal, if matters aren't bad enough on the home front, as in between their parents,with the current situation.

Why should the kids suffer?

Too allow someone’s misgivings go unnoticed is one thing. But to allow a public figure to be thought of in a high regard such as that of father of the year when they have been cavorting around is nothing short of hypocrisy.

His acceptance speech of the public voted award contained the sentence “My family mean the world to me and receiving this award has made me feel extremely proud.”

Given his tendency to lie not only to his wife, but also to the public, he should be shown to be that what he truly is. If he wishes to act all romantic and gushing in front of the crowds, let his dirty laundry be aired!

if he should be publicly lauded/credited for his boons then he should also be humiliated in public for his sins/banes.

Alternatively he wanted to protect his family and loved ones from the awful truth and its awful consequences packed with public slander/humiliation.

The injunction would have prevented the 'media' from propagating gossip; it would not hypothetically under any circumstances prevent his sponsors,colleagues etc from finding out.

The rights granted to us as ‘human’ should not be used too sparingly. If we do this we seem to give them a menial debase meaning. The reality is of course that human rights are not menial, they are crucial. Given this fact, how can Terry claim that his privacy has been invaded by newspapers publishing stories about him? What Terry sought was an injunction that prevented the newspapers even discussing the fact that the injunction existed. The only reason that Terry wanted this was so that his colleagues, his managers and his sponsors did not make changes that would see him lose money. He didn’t want to lose sponsors, he didn’t want to lose his England Captaincy, he truthfully did not give a stuff about privacy.

This is no different from the father of the year point.

His exemplar performance on the playing field is what he is paid for. Without his talent and his execution/honing of that very same talent he would be a sports-star and we must not let it slip our minds, that thar is all he owes his fans: A Good Game.

His job is not be consistently in the tabloids so people watch his latest holly-wood flick.He plays football. Disclosure is something he owes his immediate family not thousands of strangers.

If celebrities can have private weddings under private pretexts then they should have the leverage to have private affairs and private divorces and private whatever else.

A father of the year award was won in a 'public competition'; nobody pried into his home life and no one has the right to. It isn't public every time his son pats him on the back or when his wife says he's great in bed; he is not realistically publicly lauded each and every time he wins praise from loved ones and every time his family isn't happy with him, it isn't public either.

Point being, this man should have had the right to protect his home/family from social stigma.

And was unfairly not granted that right.

Terry is in the public domain. This does not mean he is public property, but it means he has made a living out of the public liking him. Whilst he would earn a decent amount through the football, the majority would come from sponsorships and public appearances. Given that he is making money from the public being in awe of Terry, why should he be able to impose an injunction of the negative side when he suddenly is not the golden boy? You cannot pick up one side of the stick without the other. If you want to be praised in public then you should learn to be criticised in public too.

hypothetically, your father/husband has an affair with his best friend's wife/lover/girlfriend. This is a very tight situation.

Would you prefer it, if the whole situation was pretty hush hush, dealt with behind closed doors, where all the drama ensued

OR

with drama at home and drama everywhere else. You can't go anywhere without people giving you looks, or laughing at you 'cause you don't what they deemed the perfect life anymore. It is bad enough; that your father/husband did what he did; does the entire world need to know?

Terry, if he had any guilt has been dealing with it for years, the toll of his aberration has finally hit the family and naturally they need their space to deal with it.

Which they, because of an unreasonable judge won't have; since they have to cope with public derision on top of the shock of their lives.

Privacy regards keeping personal information personal in order to allow people to live their lives how they see fit whilst not injuring others in a sphere of privacy. Reputation damage is stopping things being published as it would damage your income. You can prevent the media broadcasting personal affairs for the sake of privacy but not for the sake of reputation. This highlights how important privacy is compared to other beneficial protections that the law provides. Terry used financial evidence to argue for privacy, but privacy is not about financial position. Defamation is the protection of reputation and financial injury, but to claim this you have to prove that what is being said is false. This then leads us to the question of why John Terry saw fit to argue for privacy and not try to proclaim his innocence.

A distinction needs to be made between what is and is not a breach of privacy. Surely it cannot be a breach of privacy for the details of your misdemeanours to be published. Compare this to the situation whereby the pres are taking photos of your dead carcass after a car crash or entering your hospital ward and taking photos as happened in 1990 with Sunday Sport journalists and Gordon Kaye’s. Surely we can see in these scenarios that there is a real breach on the personal privacy of the individual by the press. Surely this is the privacy that the Human Right’s Act should protect, not the immoral actions of the famous.