Public Figures and Privacy

A person who enters public life is necessarily forced to surrender some degree of personal privacy.
Describe a specific situation in which a public figure should not have to surrender personal privacy. Discuss what you think determines when a public figure's personal privacy ought to be surrendered.
___


In most supermarkets, the check-out counters are lined with magazine stacks feeding customers' appetite for celebrity gossip. Politicians' extra-marital affairs, actresses' weight gain/loss, and exotic destinations frequented by public figures provide entertainment to regular people who need relief from their mundane lives. People dream about becoming famous and recognized by complete strangers. However, they do not think about the compromises celebrities make in leading public life---such as giving up their privacy. Laws in the US make it difficult for these public figures to claim relief for defamatory actions taken by writers and publishers. While most of these celebrities enter public life knowing that they enjoy less privacy, they still deserve some degree of privacy to preserve their dignity as human beings.

Privacy is not stated as protected right per se in the US Constitution. However, court judges have deemed that privacy is implicitly protected by the Constitution through various amendments, as well as through case precedent. The government recognizes basic protections from intrusions on our physical selves, as well as certain personal information. A regular citizen may also bring defamation and libel suits alleging that certain people or the government has stated or written incorrect, harmful statements. Those deemed to be public figures---usually actors/actresses, politicians, and prominent business leaders---however, are held to a higher burden of proof. They must not only demonstrate the untruthfulness of he comment---they, unlike private actors, have to show that the defendant acted with malice, knowing that he was spreading lies or showing a reckless disregard for the truth. This higher burden of prove makes it more difficult for public figures to successfully sue on defamation.

Most celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that their privacy will be compromised. People will be curious about their lives beyond their livelihood. People--especially young fans---will view the celebrities as role models and emulate their dress, mannerisms, and all aspects of their personality. Despite an expectation for losing privacy, these public figures still deserve to maintain certain information to themselves and be free from unwanted intrusion. For example, it is inappropriate to attack and judge minor children of celebrities--unless, of course, these people make an effort to be famous through certain public actions. When Bill Clinton held office, some journalists showed bad taste by poking fun at the appearance of his minor-aged daughter. Meddling into the sexual affairs of celebrities usually should be off limits. However, if these affairs affect the public's trust of the figure---usually a prominent politician---there is some argument that he does not deserve privacy in this arena. A recent example includes revelations that a married Congressman, Anthony Weiner, used his public persona to draw in women and send lewd pictures online.


If celebrities were given the same proof of burden to successfully pursue defamation law suits, they would be earning much more above their regular salaries via the court system. These celebrities enter the public sphere knowing that they will have to compromise their privacy and have countless articles dedicated to them. They realize that the publicity will not always be positive news regarding their performance in movies or their accomplishments in office. Sometimes the news will be vile and even pry into their family and intimate relationships. As human beings, these public figures also deserve a certain extent of privacy and should be able to defend themselves against lies that are maliciously spread to hurt their reputation and livelihood.