"To complete the historical mission in this country, freedom of public opinion must cover all the necessary information for members of society to adapt to the times or benefit them. When discussing "news value", judges who have always been arbitrary can only mention in general terms that "freedom of speech and freedom of the press are the primary values in society, and hawkish scientific experts often talk about the visual term' literary stupidity'. "
You see, when I see people arguing because the media exposes celebrities' privacy, people are vague and vague. No one can really explain the following questions in detail: what is "news value", what is "public figure", what is "public interest" and where is the boundary of "privacy right" of public figures. ...
For example, the United States Supreme Court, for a long time.
The colorful and complicated social sciences are not all so lacking in weights and measures. Therefore, if people exist in society, they must bear the risk of being exposed. At the state court level, it is more pragmatic, but it is still vague: "When the open topic involves reasonable public concern."
In short, it does not constitute an invasion of privacy. Even during the period of American imperialism, the legal practice of the right to privacy was still tangled-"From 1905 to the beginning of 1960, the federal court and state court * * * made about 300 judgments on the right to privacy, but only for the content of the right to privacy.
I hope everyone can improve their moral awareness and protect the privacy of themselves and others!
Hope to adopt ~