Perils of "Pauline", privacy, and old photos of someone

Mark Day in The Australian yesterday gave Crikey a serve, and the comment thread provides a range of views. Day's final point was:

"Crikey reported that it had taken upon itself to lodge an official complaint to the Australian Press Council about The Sunday Telegraph’s use of fake Pauline Hanson pictures last March. “Crikey (public duty and all that) complained to the Press Council (as) the sole regulatory voice for print journalism,” the email said. “We thought that a national newspaper group publishing cheesy nudes purporting to be images of a public figure lacked any connection to the public interest and also raised privacy concerns ... not to mention simple issues of morality and tact.” The Press Council decided against action because the editor had apologised, legal processes had been undertaken and resolved, and the matter was therefore beyond the council’s remit. I don’t mind Crikey, or any other person or entity, having an opinion and fearlessly expressing in any form - print, broadcast or online. But spare me the hypocrisy of a media outlet as flawed as Crikey seeking regulatory judgment against another."

Margaret Simons (welcome back) responded, among other points, as we had at the time, that the only apology about the photographs hinged on the fact they weren't Pauline Hanson, suggesting nothing would be wrong with publishing 30 year old photos of someone's behind closed door activities- if it had only been the right person.