PERSONAL PROBLEMS
This from a recent newspaper: “When a reporter called at the address, Miss Doe or Mrs. Roe appeared in a highly nervous state as a result of her struggles during the day to keep out of the way of reporters. It took half an hour’s argument to induce her to acknowledge the marriage.”
As the whole story treats of this lady’s marriage, the calling her “Miss” appears to be a needlessly elaborate insult; but what seems most prominent here is the naive brutality of the inquisitor.
Here is a runaway match; the groom being a student and the son of a somewhat prominent man; it is a bit of gossip, of no general importance whatever, the publication of which is sure to cause intense distress to the bride, the groom, the father, and the heads of the institution where the young man was being educated.
In pursuit of this utterly unnecessary “news” the young bride is hounded into a “highly nervous condition” by the person hired to meddle in private affairs for trade purposes. The effect of her previous “struggle to keep out of the way” is calmly noted by the successful intruder; he forces himself in where he was not wanted; he remains admittedly against the will of the occupier; he talks like a book-agent and wears out the already nervous woman till he makes her “acknowledge the marriage.”
As a personal problem, why should any citizen submit to be exploited in this manner for trade purposes?
As a public problem, why should any tradesman be allowed to practice this sort of psychic assault and battery?
The position was well expressed by a wise man as follows: “If the newspaper is a public business for public service, by what right do personal owners make fortunes out of it? If it is a personal business for personal profit, by what right does it meddle with my private affairs?”
This might be made an extremely debatable question: What right has anyone to keep to himself some process, drug, or special knowledge of real value to humanity? Patents or royalties may be allowed, with full freedom to use, but has he the right to conceal and withhold his benefaction? Or suppose again, that one has some distinction of no use to humanity, yet of sufficient interest to the gaping crowd to command a price for exhibition; if one is a Bearded Lady, say, or a Living Skeleton, or a Fat Boy, and if one makes a living by exhibiting these peculiarities and selling one’s photograph—then would it be just to allow any and every photographer to forcibly take one’s picture and sell it?
Further, suppose one has a private history rich in biographical revelations, and intended to publish the same, after the manner of those major and minor ego-maniacs of the astounding “confessions”; then is it right that the public scandal pedlars be allowed to chase their prey into his or her private house, and by a sort of “third degree” process wring from the exhausted and irritated victim these biographical tidbits, that they may go and sell them to their own profit?
“The public is interested in these things,” we are gravely told by these who thus make a living.
The Public might, conceivably, be interested in the table manners of certain noted persons, or their expressions while shaving, or “doing their hair.”
Is it therefore permissible that dealers in picture post-cards, or makers of moving picture. shows, come in with cameras at mealtimes or toilette hours, and photograph the lifted soupspoon, the purchased hair, or cheek stretched under the razor?
The right of society to the best service of all, we must accept as paramount; but what right has a private individual to exploit the secrets of other private individuals merely for his own financial profit? And how can he claim “social service” as his excuse, when what he does is no benefit but an injury to society?
Do we not need a wide and thorough revision of our ideas as to social and personal rights?