Public's Right to Know v. Individual's Right to Privacy

The public's right to know must sometimes take precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Describe a specific situation in which an individual's right to privacy might justifiable take precedence over the public's right to know. Discuss what you think determines when the public's right to know is more important than the individual's right to privacy While privacy is not explicitly covered by the Constitution, the US Supreme Court has recognized it as a right enjoyed by citizens. Specifically in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court found that the Bill of Right has "penumbras" that create zones of privacy. This includes, among others, the First Amendment right of association and the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's home. Of course, the most famous case guaranteeing the right of privacy is Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion. Since the Constitution does not explicitly cover privacy, a series of court precedence has come to define the contours of the type of privacy protected by the government. One of these issues involves whether a public's right to know takes precedence over an individual's right to privacy. Court cases have specifically drawn a distinction between types of citizens who seek recourse for violations of privacy. Namely, there is a difference between how regular and famous people are treated. When raising a defamation lawsuit, famous or public persons must prove an additional element of malice on the part of the defendant. The regular person filing suit need to only show that his name was defamed without looking into the intentions of the defendant. Therefore, those holding public office or having high-exposure professions (such as athletes and actors) will find it harder to sue when the press publishes something unfavorable or detrimental to their image. Some of the most famous cases regarding a public person's right to privacy involves politician sexual indiscretion. At first glance, it would seem that what a politician does in his private time has no consequence on his public duties. However, citizens and the nation of the whole demand their right to know about actions that reveal their representative's real sense of virtues. The distinction between regular and famous people in the Constitution, in a way, ensures that the public has a right to know about these indiscretions revealing hypocrisy. However, even a public person's right to privacy has to be protected to a certain extent. For example, there are certain subjects that most people agree should not be touched. This includes respecting the privacy of a public person's children. In general, the press will honor requests not to cover the activities of those minors who have not done anything to put themselves in the public limelight---other than have a parent who is famous. In the new age of the internet, it has been more difficult for citizens, both regular and famous, to enjoy any sense of privacy. Anyone can publish information online---true and untrue---that will be difficult to erase. The public has greater access to information and it is challenging sometimes to ascertain what is real and relevant. In the process, individuals now more than ever expect to encounter violations of privacy online where there it is virtually impossible to control the posting of information.