Privacy vs. Freedom of Press The right to privacy is more important than the freedom of the press. A great deal of media intrusion is abuse of press freedom by solely aiming to boost circulation by feeding on public interest instead of determining what is in the public's best interest (Skidelsky). Courts have held there is no special privileges on journalists. The right to privacy should be protected by press unless given consent otherwise.

Too many times, victims of crimes and celebrities get identified in media that brings about more embarrassment. Victims of crimes, especially in rape situations, have enough embarrassment without the world knowing. In these situations, the press does more damage than good by reporting the events of these situations. The added embarrassment causes more emotional harm that takes more treatment time to heal from the occurrences and takes longer to adjust to life and living with the circumstances that stem from the crimes.

Celebrities give up a lot of privacy when it comes to the press. They deserve to have privacy in life the same as others do. On the job, the celebrities expect to deal with press issues, but in private life, it becomes an invasion of privacy. It takes away from the quality of home life with their families when everything ends up in the media and sometimes causes embarrassment for the family members as well.

Journalists have learned that truth as a defense does not fly with most invasion of privacy claims (Taylor). Consent is the only solid, certain defense against invasion of privacy claims. If the journalists obtains consent, they are in legal grounds. But without consent, whether written or expressed, journalists have no legal grounds to publish personal information in the press, whether it is in a newspaper, magazine, or in the televised...

Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 92S. Ct. 33 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1972), the court held that as long as inquiry is conducted in good faith, with relevant questions, and no harassment, a journalist must cooperate (Freedom of the Press, 2005, West's Encyclopedia of American Law). The court also held the first amendment confers no special privileges on journalists. The idea of "inquiry is conducted in good faith, with relevant questions, and no harassment" refers to respect in public matters in presenting news and information to the public based on the public's best interest.
Too many times, when media is concentrated on competition in getting the story before a competitor does, or gaining information before competition does, respect is not given to participants in the stories or information they gather. Some media have gone as far as having hidden cameras to get the story, which is not considering obtaining consent before being presented in the press and shows no respect for societal members. This is especially true where celebrities are concerned.

Media seems to concentrate on what the celebrity is doing with their off time, who they are with, where they go, where they shop, etc. This is clearly an invasion of privacy if the celebrity has not given consent for their personal lives to be presented in media, whether tabloid or whatever the medium is. Under these circumstances, celebrities are forced to live public lives, whether they choose to or not. They are not given the right to privacy in anything they choose to do, whether alone, with family or friends, or otherwise. It takes away their human rights to live as other societal members live in any aspect of their lives.

Courts have interpreted the ninth amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights…