Privacy vs. Freedom of Press the Right

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 media.

In Branzburg v. 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 to protect privacy in ways not covered in the first eight amendments (The Right of Privacy). Even the Supreme Court has broadly read the 'liberty' guarantee in the fourteenth amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right to privacy. Even though all rights to privacy are not clearly defined in the constitution, courts have acknowledged a broad territory to fairly represent the right to privacy for individuals, regardless of their positions or careers. The courts have upheld rights to privacy in cases representing victims of crimes, especially where rape is concerned. Victims should not feel they are being fried by the press just because something happened, especially where things, such as rape, brings a tremendous amount of embarrassment by itself without the help of the press. The press should be more considerate and respectful of how they gather information for the media.

There is also the area of validity. Media too often uses deceptive practices to get a story (Taylor). The deceptive practices of how media obtains the information questions the validity of the information. By gathering information by deceptive practices, how does the public know the whole truth is getting told? Deceptive practices can bring about misleading information that causes harm to public members without appropriate reason for the harm. Too many times, the information that comes from hidden cameras, etc., has proven to not exactly be the truth. Societal members who know the truth tell others and the press ends up having told lies, or only small parts of the truth that leads to misleading information being given to the larger public.

"Members of Congress and several state legislators have already considered so called 'paparazzi' bills designed to punish news gathering efforts, which intrude upon an individual's rights" (Taylor). The Privacy Protection Study Commission was formed to evaluate the Freedom of Information Act as it pertains to privacy rights. Many governmental members are trying to enforce the press to respect and uphold rights to individual privacy. The media should not be allowed to satisfy public curiosity under the cover of protecting public interest. The rights to privacy should be protected by the press unless they are specifically given consent otherwise.