<< Well, freedom of speech intersects with protection of privacy. >>
Maybe, but there is no question which supercedes which.
<< I am not saying journalism is sacrosanct by any means but at least there are some checks and balances that people try to observe. >>
It is sacrosanct. They can say anything they like. This is guaranteed by the first amendment. There may be legal consequences in some limited instantces (e.g., libel, slander), but these have very tight definitions, and still do not prohibit somebody from saying or printing them if they like. There may also be moral consequences, but there is no way to legislate morality because it is inherently a subjective matter (among other reasons). Many have tried, all have failed. All attempts have created far more problems than they hoped to solve, and have invariably created tremendous harm. Prohibition is one notable example. There are many others.
Your line of thinking is well-intentioned I am sure, but littered with landmines. The logical progression all too soon leads inevitably to disaster.
It is far, far better to accept that things will be said and printed which are misleading, misguided, blatantly false, even harmful. In fact, you can assume that. It has always been true, and no legislation in any country at any time has ever altered that simple fact. So I think it is safe to say it always will be true, because truth and fact are at their essence subjective judgements that people try in vain to make objective. The best you can ever hope for is to define objective by consensus: truth is what the majority assert is true and agree upon.
What is the solution to a world where we are surrounded by lies and distortions? The same solution we employ during every election. And during the periods between each election, too: caveat emptor. You must judge. You have no inherent right to expect to be exposed only to "truthful" undistorted, spin-less, or even "factual" things. The motivation behind distortions may be innocent, indavertent, or intentional. All are perfectly allowed and are ubiquitous.
I think this says it all. This is the highest law of the land. These are among the most important principles that the Revolutionary War was fought over and this country founded upon:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
We may value privacy, but we value freedom of speech so much more that we made it the very first amendment, and never formulated anything like it to guarantee privacy. You can easily imagine numerous reasons: such a guarantee would conflict with other amendments, notably the first. A movie star may, for example, demand that the press not publish anything about their personal lives at all. A politician may demand that there be no public disclosure of "private" matters that the public may rightly need to know, for example if they had been convicted of crimes in the past, or been accused (or even convicted) of treason, or had married somebody with known connections to foreign intelligence, were members of hate groups or groups seeking the overthrow of the government, etc. etc. The only amendment pertaining to privacy is the fourth, which is mostly directed at government invasion of privacy via search and seizure.
T |
