Freedom of the Press Versus Right to Privacy

Privacy is defined and interpreted differently depending on the person or persons involved. The one thing that is agreed upon is that privacy in all forms is a right and shall receive equal protection for all people under the laws of the constitution. This includes the right to our personal affairs to be let alone, financials, medical records, opinions, privacy of worship, privacy in our homes and intimate interactions. However right to privacy extends far beyond our personal lives and information being left alone and out of the public eye. In the past privacy was not something that was thought of so

Much of today’s society seems obsessed on what actors/actress, athletes, and music artist are wearing, eating, who they are marrying, dating, where they are vacationing, what affairs they are having or have had, and how they live their everyday lives. What’s so interesting about this obsession is as a society we build them up only to tear them down. Media outlets are swift to report when celebrities are in trouble; accomplishments are hardly reported unless they have passed away or an awards show is being telecast. It’s as if we want them to be perfect but once they are associated with a scandal we begin to destroy their reputation, character, only to overlook their accomplishment, if any. Should society hold them to higher standards just

Privacy is, and should continue to be, a fundamental dimension of living in a free, democratic society. Laws protect “government, credit, communications, education, bank, cable, video, motor vehicle, health, telecommunications, children’s and financial information; generally carve out exceptions for disclosure of personal information; and authorize the use of warrants, subpoenas, and court orders to obtain the information.” (Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment, 2008) This is where a lot of people feel as though they have their privacy violated. Most Americans are law-abiding citizens who do not commit illegal acts against the country, they want to go about their lives, minding their own business and not having to worry about outside interference. The fine line between privacy and National Security may not be so fine in everyone’s mind. While it is the job of government agencies to ensure the overall safety of the country and those living in it, the citizens that obey the law and do not do anything illegal often wonder why they are subject to any kind of search, when they can clearly point out, through documentation, that they have never done anything wrong.

The common law jurisdiction in the UK did not hold the rights of an individual 's privacy highly against the public interest of free expression. UK had a tragic lesson learnt with the death of Princess Diana from chasing paparazzi and in 1998 the United Kingdom passed its Human Rights Act which included a right to privacy. Yet many Judges decisions still use the words of breach of confidence.

Defining National Security VS Personal Privacy is a matter of looking at the basic nature of each. From research collected there is a consensus that we need balance. Too much of one hurts the other and vise versa. There are a couple of articles that range from Civil Liberties to the birth of public right to know that support the overall claim. Talks about the effects of censorship in different situations like war and peace will help prove that a balance needs to be forged. The problem here isn’t the definition of personal vs national security, but the survival of each in light of each other. There is history in our nation

As Oliver Diggelmann and Maria Nicole Cleis wrote in a 2014 article published in the Human Rights Law Review, the right to privacy has two distinct meanings: “privacy as freedom from society” and “privacy as dignity.”

During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.

King, Geoffrey. "Clear and present danger: the NSA, surveillance and the threat to press freedom." Nieman Reports 68.1 (2014): 38+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

The right to privacy is viewed as a fundamental right all over the world. However, there are many interpretations of what privacy is, and this interpretations are in some way related to historical events that shaped the meaning of privacy differently for every country. Countries of the European Union consider the right to privacy a sacred right, therefore, they have established laws to protect the respect for private and family life and the right to personal data protection. Although United States has some sector laws to protect privacy, the constitution does not mention privacy as fundamental right, nonetheless, the notion of privacy can be extracted from the first 10 amendments of the constitution. Consequently, regulation of the right to privacy changes drastically between Europe and the United States. Countries in Europe have regulatory agencies whose only purpose is protect the privacy of its citizens. In contrast, the

The interpretation of “privacy” under the PCC Code was considered in R (Ford) v Press Complaints Commission . The applicant was the well known television journalist, Anna Ford. She looked for authorization to apply for judicial review of the PCC choice dismissing her protest about distribution of photos of her and her accomplice on a disengaged yet open shoreline abroad. Silber J refused permission on the basis of the “broad discretion” given to media regulators and the “extended deference given by the courts” to their

The United States should prioritize privacy over national security because of abuse of power, the ineffective use of surveillance to stop terrorists’ attacks, and the diminished freedom that occurs with surveillance in America. There is difficulty in maintaining freedom and securing our nation. The goals of each appear to be counter to the other. Can this country strike a balance between the two? Considering that America was founded on freedom, privacy and personal rights should

As a private citizen, my privacy is very important, especially when in this new digital age; governmental agencies will use that information against you if they have a probable cause to. However, we are protected under the First and Fourth amendment, which gives us rights to speech, to drink or smoke in our homes without governmental intrusion. But when those rights are violated, we have the options to dispute those actions and if not satisfied with the results we can take it to the courts. But in order to do this we must limit what we say or do, in order to prevent these agencies from trying to impinge on our rights of liberty. What this does is give the agencies the right to look into our lives, but are we actually giving them the

Is there a way to balance the protection of individual rights while protecting the public at the same time? There are many arguments to this question due to the grey areas surrounding individual rights and public rights. Many argue that their rights are violated but then complain when the protection of the public is breached. This needs to be a give and take situation and people need to realize that they will have to give up some privacy for the good of all.

“Many laws exist in Britain restraining the media. In 1992, the White Paper, Open Government, identified 251 laws outlawing information disclosure. Two years later the Guild of Editors listed 46 directly relating to journalists. The laws of libel, contempt, defamation, obscenity and ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop alleged breaches of confidence all act as restraints on the media.” (Keeble, Richard/ Ethics for Journalists)

Problems take place within the media when public interest is conflicted with human right and the right to privacy. You can easily validate publishing privet information as a form of public interest, but you however cannot justify the damages it may cause.