Furthermore, If the public has the right to watch crime-inprogress arrests" (live on tv?) - should the same publics NOT be shown videos of ( excuse the example) rape-in-action arrests? among others... On Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:56 PM, ICT Researcher <ict.researcher@yahoo.com> wrote: Fundamental Rights and freedoms that may not be limited despite any other provision in the Constitution include freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the right to a fair trial. Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily revealed. Imagine YOU end up making national news – either paraded before television cameras or your photograph published on newspapers being tested with alcoblow by the police. The police find your breath 'ok' (as the gadget displays) so they let you drive on. But what if you were a spiritual leader, an upcoming politician, career person, a teacher, a parent such other law abiding citizen whom somebody just didn't like thus 'fate' to conspires to have you on media being tested for drunken driving? Here a person is guilty until proven innocent? Tried before the media – not before a court of law. Presumed guilty unless and until proven innocent. Your dignity eroded (Article 28), privacy violated (Article 31(c)), inalienable (illimitable) Fundamental Rights (Article 25(a)(c)) – casually taken away by the media in collaboration with the law enforcement agents! Even if one were pre-tried on the media and later found guitly in court, did the media prejudice the trial thus miscarriage of justice? Your opinion? ----- For the avoidance of doubt: (a) Supports eradication of road carnage, menace and corruption (b) Never appeared on bretherlizer "police news"