Public figure, private info hacked, should it be disregarded by the public?

I think this is going to continue to be a problem for public figures.

Nude selfies by celebrities
Abhorrent opinions by executives of large corporations
Nefarious cover-up by politicians
Private opinions about candidates within your own party
Private recordings between colleagues

Assuming that the hacked information wasn’t tampered with and is as it was written or described by the person keeping it private, i.e. factual truth, should the public disregard these revelations? Or should they be considered in the court of public opinion or even as evidence of criminal activity*.

    • it is my understanding that evidence even criminally obtained is permissible as long as it wasn’t obtained by law enforcement authorities without a warrant. i.e. a murder weapon stolen by a burglar and then determined to be the murder weapon is admissible.

How would that even work?

When the judge says, “The jury will disregard the statement” does that even work?

Fair enough. Should the press disregard these revelations in their editorial opinions of these public individuals?

That would be the ideal of etiquette.

Your neighbors are having a discussion about their personal finances, and the windows are open, so you can hear, if you choose to listen. A really polite person will not listen.

Good luck telling the public they should ignore it.

If you know something about someone, you use it to judge them, even if it came to you as inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

You’re eavesdropping on a used car dealer talking to the man upstairs, telling him he is willing to accept $5000. You have no right to offer $5000, because you shouldn’t have heard that.

Not quite the same when they’re talking about you. Even Miss Manners wouldn’t go that far!

(Ditto if you happen to overhear a conspiracy to commit a crime. It would be shabby etiquette not to report it!)

Each of us has private and public info. And each of us tries to keep them separated.

The advent of internet, big data, etc., means each of us leave a larger recorded trail. A trail waiting to be uncovered. Certainly anything like Ken Bone’s history that’s “hiding in plain sight” is no longer hiding at all, unlike perhaps 20 years ago.

Society will have to get used to the fact that your digital trail IS a public record. Even the parts you try to keep private.

I suspect at first we’ll have what we do now: public overreaction to revelations, and some people hoist by their own laziness. After a few years both aspects will change: People will get better at thinking twice before leaving such a large trail, and people will also expect that darn near everybody has a skeleton or two.

I’ve always felt this was a sham; if anything, telling jurors to disregard Evidence X will probably make jurors, deep down, feel all the *more *determined to take Evidence X into account, feeling that the judge is trying to suppress truth of some sort. Legal version of a Striesand Effect.