What would you do if someone took a photo of you when you were sleeping? And what if he put that photo on the Internet? Would you feel angry? Luckily, you are not a public figure. It would only affect your daily life a little bit. Perhaps those who know you would laugh at you. However, it would be a disaster to those public figures because everybody knows them. And that would damage their public image. There has been a long-lasting and controversial battle in our society on the priority of the right to privacy, the right to know, and the right to speak. This essay is going to prove that the right to privacy is always the first one among the others. That is, reporters should not be allowed to write about the private lives of public figures.
Everyone should have the right to privacy no matter what class he is in, what his nationality is and what colour his skin is. The right to privacy refers to the advantage enjoyed by the common consent to keep one’s own belongings away from anybody else. The belongings can be a real thing and also an abstract concept, like a thought and an idea. In other words, all public figures deserve the right to keep their private lives away from the reporters. No one can gain the power to break the laws without any permission from a legalized authority. It will disturb the public figures and reduce their freedom to do what they like if someone wants to know their private lives by chasing them. Diana, the princess of Wales, was a victim in this issue. She was killed in a car accident when the driver wanted to escape from the chasing of the paparazz1.
Someone may argue that others should also have the right to know. With this crucial power, the Chen Shui Bian family, the former first family of Taiwan was found to be dishonest with their use of money. Without the right to know, it is simply a dead end when we want to check if somebody has done something illegal secretly. Then the right to know should stay in a position higher than that of the right to privacy. That is only true under three conditions — first, if one’s private life affects others or the public; second, if the action of checking one’s private life is permitted by a legalized authority; third, if the public figures allow somebody to write about their private lives. In the case of the Chen family, they stole the money from the government and their act was a threat to public interst. Furthermore, the action of checking everything related to their private lives is permitted.
The reporters may also argue that they should have the right to speak whatever they like. However, that is only part of the fact. They deserve the right to speak the right thing, the fact, while they follow the Basic Rule, to maintain their professional careers. That is, they should only write about the truth with nothing created or changed and not exaggerate any part of the news. Moreover, they should not write something that is very sensitive and dangerous. For instance, reporters will not write about the national secret because they know it is illegal to do so. It is still true when applying to the private lives of public figures. They have the freedom to talk about the private lives of public figures if and only if what they do is illegal or affects public interests.
To summarize, the right to privacy should have a higher position when compared with the right to know and the right to speak because the law is set according to and based on the protection of an individual. Besides, no one can have the power to deprive others of their rights without any permission. As a result, the reporters should not be allowed to write about privates lives of public figures.