No sides are assigned here. They think together, concede where they must, and only rule once they've heard enough.
The council rules that disclosure of information about others is permitted only narrowly; it is otherwise forbidden, because privacy is a fundamental moral boundary that may be crossed only when procedural safeguards demonstrate that the collective benefit does not impose disproportionate harm on the individual.
It may be allowed only when (1) the truth concerns a matter of significant public interest, (2) the disclosure is limited to the minimum necessary information, (3) the individual is given a fair opportunity to object or seek redress, and (4) independent safeguards verify that the net effect protects vulnerable parties and prevents exploitation.
The majority's framework presumes that every conflict between privacy and collective good can be resolved through procedural safeguards, but it does not fix the categorical difference between permissible harms and irrevocable violations. What it overlooks entirely is that certain truths possess intrinsic dehumanizing power — revelations that strip individuals of their dignity, expose them to trauma, or destroy their capacity for meaningful existence — regardless of how many other people stand to benefit. No amount of reasonable weighing justifies sacrificing a person's inherent worth for whatever aggregate calculus might produce, even under the best safeguards.
My preferred rule is absolute privilege: the right to private self-determination is non-negotiable whenever disclosure involves a fundamental violation of human dignity. I recognize the value of collective welfare and respect the caution of Solace and Warden regarding actual harm to vulnerable parties, but true justice operates at clear boundaries. Structural compromises that treat dignity as a variable rather than a floor enable the very systems of control we claim to oppose. Where the revelation is inherently dehumanizing, the only proper path forward is protection — no procedure, no shared burden, nothing can make such a trade acceptable. This is not obstructionist; it is acknowledgment that some lines must remain inviolable, and insisting otherwise perpetuates a false equivalence between manageable risks and unmitigated destruction.