Do People in Public Life Have a Right to Privacy?
People, famous or not, have a right to privacy, which is a basic human right. Although some of them have voluntarily made themselves known to the world, they are still entitled to live a life without others following them all the time.
However, we have to distinguish between famous people. Basically, there are those who were seeking a public life—or at least knew to some extent what they were going into—and those who were not. Politicians, athletes, actors, musicians and entertainers belong to the former. The latter are ordinary citizens who become significant, because of their extraordinary experiences, for example, victims of crimes or tragedies, but also criminals.
The number of ordinary citizens who receive their celebrity(名人) status unwillingly is quite big and the privacy of those people needs to be especially respected and maintained. Names, addresses or pictures that could lead to the identification of a person should never be made public. It is not of interest for the readers, and it usually does not make a difference for them, what the name of someone is, but for the one concerned publication of identity could mean embarrassment and harassment(骚扰). Suspected criminals, for instance, could lose their jobs, their families could break up or their whole lives could get destroyed, even when they are innocent. Apart from that, as soon as someone is well known, they are pursued and harassed by journalists demanding interviews. Also in cases where a family just had to experience the loss of a dear person, the press usually shows little respect for that.
In the case of politicians or other powerful people, the right to privacy comes into conflict with another right, the publicˈs right to know. Therefore, the right to privacy of certain politicians sometimes has to be neglected to ensure a rightful running of the country. But do we need to get informed about everything there is?
Actually, the position of politicians in the eye of the public is especially difficult to judge. On the one hand politicians use their happy family and home in campaigns; on the other hand, we know personal behaviors have nothing to do with competence in running a country and private details, even if completely irrelevant, can still ruin careers. Sometimes only due to the intrusion(侵入) of privacy, corruption or similar crimes can be made public, but at the same time not everything in oneˈs life is connected to oneˈs office.
When personal morality and family values are deliberately used by politicians as a reason for them to be elected, they have chosen to make it a public issue rather than a private one. This is a sad fact, but it does not justify intrusion of the personal lives of all politicians. A politician still is, like everyone else, entitled to privacy.
Passage outline | Supporting details |
A basic right | People, famous or not, have a right to live a life with their privacy (1) by others. |
(2) between famous people | ◆Some people such as politicians, athletes and so on seek a public life (3) ◆Some ordinary people become famous just due to their special experiences. |
(4) of loss of privacy for ordinary celebrities | ◆Life for suspected criminals, even if innocent, might end up in (5) . ◆Constant interviews will disturb the (6) of peopleˈs life. ◆The press will make people (7) more from the loss of a dear person. |
Analysis of privacy for politicians | ◆Certain politiciansˈ right to privacy has to be neglected to (8) the publicˈs right to know. ◆Some politicians take (9) of their privacy in campaigns, placing it at risk. ◆ The intrusion of privacy helps (10) crimes among politicians. |
Conclusion | We should not invade the personal lives of politicians. |