And thinking that through, I expect the DM will say (using grand notions such as defence of the truth, and espousing the virtues of investigative journalism) that if they're to be silenced on "private" matters, they'd be nothing more than an unpaid advertisement agency for people in the public eye, as they'd have to seek permission to print anything.
Which, of course, won't fly.
Which brings me back to the point I was longwindedly getting at in my earlier post: this Instagram generation don't seem to realize that IG, FB, Twitter etc are basically advertising media (it's why they're free to use). They're a vehicle for people and corporations and political parties (and royal families) to put out their own messages, cutting out the middle men (newspapers). In the old days, Diana and Charles etc were briefing and leaking all the time. Their children just go straight to Instagram.
So when there's a challenge to that carefully controlled message, it all goes tits up. They don't like it, so they bring lawsuits, and run away, complaining that they're being treated unfairly.
If the time spent curating an image on IG had been spent doing something constructive - such as, oh I don't know, unpublicized charitable work, learning the ropes, listening to advisers and experts - none of this mess would have happened.
I sound more and more like my elderly mum with each passing day....