Libertarians are opposed to government or private surveillance even for purposes of national security or protection of minors from internet porn.  They so value individual liberty that they have consistently challenged any potential benefit that might offset the harm to that core value.  Knowing this, I was astonished to watch last Friday’s segment of 20/20, a magazine show co-hosted by John Stossel, one of New York’s high profile libertarians, and usually a maverick when it comes to conventional wisdom in public issues.  The segment dealt with Bernard Madoff, the easiest pincushion in America right now, and therefore, the one who most tests our principles of fair play.  Just as free speech is not a real issue until it comes to extreme and unpopular positions - such as tolerating controversial cartoons or Nazi rallies through Jewish neighborhoods - so too, the issue of privacy for self-confessed but unconvicted criminals deserves consideration, particularly when it comes to scoundrels.

     The 20/20 television crew peered through those proverbial “penthouse” windows that were three quarters closed by window blinds.  The interior of these windows is not visible from the street;  someone would have to be filming from a high floor in a building across the street.  What they filmed was Bernard Madoff lawfully sitting at his computer and not violating any rules of his house arrest.  The voice-over informed us that he was sitting in his decorator designed den, as if this fillip of snobbery was tantamount to a transgression.  Criminal surveillance is defined as the secret observation of the activities of another person for the purpose of spying on them and invading their privacy.  The television crew hit all those criteria on the mark but added the additional venality of doing this for profit.

     The program offered some interesting information concerning a worker’s testimony that Madoff had been in semi-retirement mode and had absented the office for months at a time, leaving his sons and brother to run the show.  It documented the fact that Madoff had never processed any of his trades for the past ten years - everything was fraudulent.  This constitutes good investigative reporting and was entirely sufficient as a newsworthy addition to an overworked story.  Attempting to sensationalize the story by resorting to the tactics of a Peeping Tom cheapened the segment, turned viewers into voyeurs and certainly diminished John Stossel’s reputation. Regardless of whether this behavior was legally valid, perhaps Mr. Stossel will summon the courage to defend his libertarian priciples by issuing a well-deserved apology to his audience.  I will look forward to that.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here