Annemarie Quill: Sex romp highlights gaps in law

People are missing from a plane crash in Taiwan. Isis released a horrific video showing its fighters burning alive a captured Jordanian pilot. Journalist Peter Greste was freed dramatically after 400 days in an Egyptian jail. Research scientists in the UK made a breakthrough which could mean the end of the common cold.

Do we care?

On Thursday, one of our digital reporters, Kiri Gillespie, pointed out the New Zealand Herald's most read top four stories of the week so far: 1. Wife sees office sex romp images on Facebook. 2. Office sex romp couple are no shows at work 3. Pam Corkery on the office sex romp: pub patrons took this way too far, shame on them. 4. Office sex romp couple will not be able to sue for breach of privacy.

Proving, Gillespie noted, the old adage of "sex sells" is alive and well.

When I checked yesterday, the sex romp was still the most read story, and made up four of the five top stories, with only a story about the America's Cup cheating probe turning readers' attention away.

The "office sex romp", as the story has been dubbed this week, surely needs no introduction. But for those who have been under anaesthetic this week, it concerns two Christchurch insurance workers who unwittingly put on a public sex show for patrons of a pub across the street from the glass-fronted office building after leaving the lights on.

They were cheered on by drinkers, the pub band even gave them a soundtrack (Kings of Leon's Sex on Fire). And my favourite line in the saga, from one of the punters,

"To be honest, after watching them for a good half hour, people started to get bored and drift off back to the dance floor."

Ten years ago the story might have fizzled out there - a source of gossip in the pub for a week if that.

But in 2015, when Friday night revellers have a pint in one hand and a smartphone in the other, it was not long before videos of the live sex show were jamming people's timelines on social media. A short time afterwards, the footage was being viewed and commented on worldwide.

It started out as a bit of a snigger and, let's face it, who of us didn't find it amusing, or intriguing? An internal investigation was launched at Marsh Insurance where the couple worked.

Later in the week, the New Zealand Herald reported that the man, believed to hold a senior management position, was married, that his wife was said to have found out about the extramarital affair on Facebook on Monday evening and was "devastated".

As the week went on, the story became bigger than the individuals involved, throwing into play a key issue of our modern age - the extent to which social media breaches privacy.

What the couple did was silly, reckless. I have little sympathy for a married man acting out such a cliche.

Many on social media commented that the video was terrible for his family. In a way it is, but no more terrible than what he did. If I was his wife I would be quite happy that the whole world knew what a ratbag he was.

People on social media also criticised the media for reporting on the story all week. Ironic that the same people criticising the media for reporting on a story are on a forum commenting about it. Yet as the popularity of the story shows, the media is giving the public what it wants.

Does that make it right?

It is an important question that editors grapple with every day - the public's right and desire to know versus an individual's privacy.

The pub patrons were just doing what many people automatically do now when something unusual or interesting happens - stick it on Facebook or YouTube. The immediacy of social media doesn't allow time for consideration of ethics, or even consequences.

When does posting something as a joke become cyberbullying? People posting on social media are not subject to the same legal and ethical frameworks as the professional media.

Compare this with other professions - a person who is not a doctor performs an operation or a person turns up to build your house that has never laid so much as a brick. Such things are not legal and the pseudo professionals would be committing criminal acts.

But social media has evolved faster than the law can keep up. Some citizen journalism has great merits.

Some, such as in this case, could be problematic.

The legal and ethical questions that the story has spawned are as fascinating as watching a couple get it on when they think no one is watching.

There are no easy answers.

Some this week have commented that the only clear lesson learned is, if you are going to have sex in a glass-fronted building at night, turn the lights out. But one good thing has come out of it for me - them leaving the lights on has thrown light on the fact the law needs to catch up with social media and modern technology.