Does the Public Have the Right to Know About the Private Lives of Public Figures?

311 Words2 Pages
Politicians, royalty, movie stars, various kinds of famous people work for the public, work ir public, and be paid by the public. All they have duties to lead the people and get advantages by doing this. If one of them commits some illegal errors or immoral conducts, he or she must be blamed by others. Because these make them lose their qualifications to work for the public, They can not be typical of the people, for the public don't trust them any more. In this point of view, I agree to that the public have the right to know about public figures. Although knowing about the famous means that is about their private life. The small things like their house chores, quarrels, their children's behaviors are related with their public works sometimes and represent their characteristics in deciding something. It also affects the public directly or indirectly. A policy about economy they made can influence people' livelihoods directly. The immoral conducts - adultery, usurpation, drug abuse and so on - of famous people may make the public think that it, is not illegal to do same things. It is indirect effect. So, there is no doubt that the public have to know the private life of the famous to restrict their wrong behaviors. But if someone ask me about the rule to dig the privacies, I'll suggest one thing that should be adhered strictly. "When you search for their private news, its purpose must be for the public's action to improve works of figures but not for just fun." It is surely proved at the example of Princess Diana who was killed in car accident avoiding paparazzi’s chase. “Curiosity killed the cat.” Of course in this case, who was killed is the Princess. But the paparazzi made her meet the car accident must have been blamed by good people for a

More about Does the Public Have the Right to Know About the Private Lives of Public Figures?

Open Document