<?xml version='1.0'?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" >
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[ANYHOO 360: Wire post by Administrator}]]></title>
	<link>https://socialnetworkpresident.space/thewire/view/9995</link>
	<atom:link href="https://socialnetworkpresident.space/thewire/view/9995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description><![CDATA[}]]></description>
		<item>
	<guid isPermaLink="true">https://socialnetworkpresident.space/thewire/view/9995</guid>
	<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:39:00 -0400</pubDate>
	<link>https://socialnetworkpresident.space/thewire/view/9995</link>
	<title><![CDATA[Wire post by Administrator]]></title>
	<description><![CDATA[
<p>In 1988 I argued at Common Law, a privacy right existed in Victoria Park Racing that arose as part of the natural bundle of rights in real property, and That Victoria Park could have got an injunction to stop the broadcasting of what was happening at the race course "spectacle". What complicates that cognitive dissonance by me, is that SCOTUS has ruled recently that in the United States there is no inherent right of privacy except for MAYBE the privacy of marital interactions. So I have advocated for Taylors privacy from Taylor “Angles”, but SCOTUS has ruled that Taylor Swift has no right to privacy especially as a public ‘spectacle’, and Bravid as Taylor ‘Angles’ is fully entitled to narrate her private life to the adoring curiousity of her fans.</p>
]]></description>
	<dc:creator>Administrator</dc:creator>		</item>
</channel>
</rss>
