re: Beacon Hill Confidential

Observer — Mon, 05 May 2008 19:06:00 GMT

It's not like Azita Bina-Seibel jealously guards her privacy. (If there's not much subtlety to the Herald or Globe, there's even less to encouraging your readers to Google the woman, and then telling them which specific search terms to enter to find her name. If you want to name her, you should do so - and if you think she shouldn't be named, this entire post was innappropriate.) Last year, she opened her home for an extensive spread in the NY Times' Real Estate section, that included a remarkable amount of personal detail and an array of photos. Since the stories say the letters started arriving in November 2006, she did this at a time when she was already been harassed and stalked. I have the greatest sympathy for Ms. Bina-Seibel, and for the ordeal to which she's been subjected, through no fault of her own. But I just have a hard time buying the argument that someone who has pursued the spotlight, and opened her private residence and personal habits to the media, is entitled to the courtesies customarily extended to private citizens, but not to celebrities, in cases such as these.

re: Beacon Hill Confidential

pomsmith — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:57:01 GMT

In the Herald's defense, I read your Globe excerpt and easily IDd the restaurateur, as will have anyone else with even a cursory familiarity with the Boston dining scene. Seriously, how many Iranian-born women own two popular restaurants--in Beacon Hill? I mean, it could only be more obvious if there were an Iranian restaurant IN Beacon Hi--<I>d'oh</I>! So, where exactly is the line? What constitutes an acceptable degree of (non)identification?