3 ms·
> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't. The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes,
by 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.
The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes, it is in the public interest to know about this abuse of power.
Imagine for a second if every politician’s financial history for all of their financial accounts were on an immutable ledger. That is something that is desirable, though it violates those individuals’ privacy. In this case we would say the public interest supersedes their right to privacy.
- mmcwilliams 6y agoIt seems to be a very fluid standard, for sure, but there are other variables that are brought up in these discussions beyond whether or not a public figure is abusing their position. Who is publishing? How well-liked the public figure is and by who? If the standard boils down to there being a journalistic interest in publishing relevant information about a public figure in relation to their abuse of power then I'm not sure how possibly-faked medical records pass that test.