This is an issue that I have been pondering. As you all know, the American media has been relentlessly reporting the "Tiger Woods Affair". I find it disgusting that the media is so quick to destroy a person's life by publishing personal information. The so-called "mistresses" are making a killing by threatening to reveal 'juicy' details about his sexual activities with them, and it has led to his wife divorcing him.

 

Now, the aforementioned is merely an example of the media maliciously destroying a person's life by revealing private details. This also happens in US politics. For example, a presidential candidate may be running for Office and his rival may have people dig up information about his past. He will then try to ruin the other's campaign by saying that the other candidate smoked marijuana as a child, or they held certain views that they no longer hold.

 

With these examples, I have come to the conclusion that Freedom of the Press has gone too far. People are now abusing it in order to savagely ruin another human's life, and they are using it in order to deceive the ignorant masses into voting for them. This is purely corrupt, and I believe that it should be crushed. The Freedom of Press should be amended, and revealing private details during a political campaign should be abolished. People should never have the power to ruin another person's life with impertinent details about their private life. Of course, people should still be able to express their opinions, within reason.

 

I apologize in advance for the roughly-written post.

No, its not the First Amendment that's flawed but the American public. If everybody doesn't care if a candidate smoked coke before, then that argument cannot be used.

This is an issue that I have been pondering. As you all know, the American media has been relentlessly reporting the "Tiger Woods Affair". I find it disgusting that the media is so quick to destroy a person's life by publishing personal information. The so-called "mistresses" are making a killing by threatening to reveal 'juicy' details about his sexual activities with them, and it has led to his wife divorcing him.

 

Would you want your kids looking up to someone who commits a lot of adultery?

 

 

 

With these examples, I have come to the conclusion that Freedom of the Press has gone too far. People are now abusing it in order to savagely ruin another human's life

 

In the case of Tiger woods, he slept around with women. Lets say you were married and all of the sudden, you find out your spouce was sleeping around with someone else. What would you do? Wouldn't you be glad that you found out?

And in the case of rich people, its business.

It has to be all or nothing. Once you draw a line you have to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable and the line just gets pushed further and further back. So long as what's reported is true then it should be allowed.

It has to be all or nothing. Once you draw a line you have to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable and the line just gets pushed further and further back. So long as what's reported is true then it should be allowed.

 

I understand that. However, it's still pretty damn disgraceful whenever the media takes advantage of their freedoms and tries to gather ratings at any cost, even if it hurts a person's career. This man may have made a mistake, but it doesn't warrant the publicity that he's currently receiving over the issue...

 

As far as politicians go, private details should not be divulged during a campaign in order to ruin the other candidate's political career, unless it is pertinent. (i.e. The person is currently actively engaging in illegal activities, or they advocate a certain political philosophy) Pertinent information reveals a politician's character, which is a very important factor that potential voters deserve to know before voting for a certain individual. However, if something is impertinent, it should be kept confidential. You may feel that a politician made a mistake because he did drugs, but as long as it was in the past and isn't something that hasn't happened recently, then it is irrelevant and has no bearing on the person's ability to lead.

It has to be all or nothing. Once you draw a line you have to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable and the line just gets pushed further and further back. So long as what's reported is true then it should be allowed.

 

I understand that. However, it's still pretty damn disgraceful whenever the media takes advantage of their freedoms and tries to gather ratings at any cost, even if it hurts a person's career. This man may have made a mistake, but it doesn't warrant the publicity that he's currently receiving over the issue...

 

As far as politicians go, private details should not be divulged during a campaign in order to ruin the other candidate's political career, unless it is pertinent. (i.e. The person is currently actively engaging in illegal activities, or they advocate a certain political philosophy) Pertinent information reveals a politician's character, which is a very important factor that potential voters deserve to know before voting for a certain individual. However, if something is impertinent, it should be kept confidential. You may feel that a politician made a mistake because he did drugs, but as long as it was in the past and isn't something that hasn't happened recently, then it is irrelevant and has no bearing on the person's ability to lead.

 

"Yeah... He's been out of the kkk for 3 months :D Let's put the past behind us."

 

He's a celebrity :/ When he does something good the media rapes him. When he [bleep]s up the media rapes him harder. He did something immoral and he's paying for it ;)

I think it's stupid, I've always thought that about "celebrity gossip" and the like. Would any of you care if I cheated on my girlfriend or wife with like 15 other women? No. Hell, I'd probably even get a few high fives for it (and kicked in the balls by her friends). I'd be an [wagon], sure, but no one would really care. Yet Tiger does it and we go into a moral uproar. I don't understand it really.

 

But I do believe that the media has the right to do so. I just don't know why we're so fascinated by it.

TV news shows are only interested in ratings.

 

Its why alot of people i know of only go online for news now because we don't want to hear about the latest celeberty scandal or shock news designed to get ratings.

 

With these examples, I have come to the conclusion that Freedom of the Press has gone too far. People are now abusing it in order to savagely ruin another human's life

 

In the case of Tiger woods, he slept around with women. Lets say you were married and all of the sudden, you find out your spouce was sleeping around with someone else. What would you do? Wouldn't you be glad that you found out?

 

Sure I would be glad, but being reminded of it everyday on every news channel, don't you think it's a bit much?

Personally, I couldn't care less about what Tiger Woods does in his private life or what a politician smoked when they were a naive teenager. Having said that, you're right to say the media can be abused for political/financial reasons, which can be pretty dispicable at times.

 

Where do you draw the line though? How would you legislate againt the abuse of media power?

Personally, I couldn't care less about what Tiger Woods does in his private life or what a politician smoked when they were a naive teenager. Having said that, you're right to say the media can be abused for political/financial reasons, which can be pretty dispicable at times.

 

Where do you draw the line though? How would you legislate againt the abuse of media power?

This. The main reason I avoid watching the news and only occasionally reading a newspaper is because it's hard to watch/read the whole thing without them publishing a story that they shouldn't.

It's like the saying

"Religion is flawed, because man is flawed."

 

In this cause replace religion with Amendments.

It has to be all or nothing. Once you draw a line you have to start deciding what is and what is not acceptable and the line just gets pushed further and further back. So long as what's reported is true then it should be allowed.

 

I understand that. However, it's still pretty damn disgraceful whenever the media takes advantage of their freedoms and tries to gather ratings at any cost, even if it hurts a person's career. This man may have made a mistake, but it doesn't warrant the publicity that he's currently receiving over the issue...

 

As far as politicians go, private details should not be divulged during a campaign in order to ruin the other candidate's political career, unless it is pertinent. (i.e. The person is currently actively engaging in illegal activities, or they advocate a certain political philosophy) Pertinent information reveals a politician's character, which is a very important factor that potential voters deserve to know before voting for a certain individual. However, if something is impertinent, it should be kept confidential. You may feel that a politician made a mistake because he did drugs, but as long as it was in the past and isn't something that hasn't happened recently, then it is irrelevant and has no bearing on the person's ability to lead.

 

I'm no fan of the current state of the media either, but if that is the price of freedom of speech then we have to pay it and be thankful that we're getting such a bargain.

But that's only because freedom of speech and press have been hideously misrepresented in order to cover the sensationalist media. Freedom of press was supposed to protect against censorship and promote public debate, not to intrude in the private sphere like that. By no means would freedom be harmed if you stopped listening about, say, Tiger Woods.

 

There's a very clear difference between the original intentions and rationale of freedom of press, and the media exposing, and even destroying, someone's private life. There's no need to throw them both together under the umbrella of "freedom". By saying regulating the media like that would only lead to further encroachment of liberties you are just making up a slippery slope.

Like someone else said, do you want your kids looking up to someone who commits adultery? Do you want a president who did drugs, was an alcoholic, smoked, or still does?

 

I certainly don't want either of these things. Celebrities and in general famous people need to get used to this. If they've never done anything bad, they've got nothing to worry about!

 

I think they should be able to do whatever they want and should certainly have access into anything related to politics they want/have a reason to want. That's the whole point of the First Amendment. If you've done something illegal, you should be prepared for them to dig it up and proclaim it to the world.

Okay, I'll first get the more..business-like aspect over first.

 

The types that report these stories are often tabloid newspapers and news programming. Now, the purpose of these are to entertain, nothing really grabs our attention like a sensational article, especially if someone famous is involved.

 

Now, who does the blame really lie with? Us. We watch this programming/read those tabloid newspapers. They're just going with a business practice that works, and we buy into it. Sure, we'll all [bleep] about this so called invasion of their privacy and such, but hell...I blame the masses.

 

Okay, now for the actual matter at hand.

 

Freedom of Press/Speech is always taken at face value. They believe it means pretty much absolute freedom, of course, it does not. Like others, I believe if we let them have more control over 1 aspect, they'll eventually try for more and more, imposing more limits. Celebrities should know what happens when the misdeeds of celebrities are found out, if they were really that bothered by the possibility of it happening to them then they are either in the wrong line of work, or they should just avoid any of these misdeeds. Of course, it's a different matter when say, a politician had tried weed when he was 18, who really cares about something that no longer happens, as far as we know, and that occurred years ago.

Do you want a president who did drugs, was an alcoholic, smoked, or still does?

 

If he/she was an alcoholic, smoked marijuana (oh lawdy :roll:) and is now completely clean, his reputation will still be tarnished if that is revealed. And that's not normal because the person took the steps that are necessary to solve his problem. In fact, I think it's all the better that they found themselves in a deep problem and managed to pull themselves out of it. What they did in the distant past is irrelevant, and that's what we're talking about ITT.

 

I certainly don't want either of these things. Celebrities and in general famous people need to get used to this. If they've never done anything bad, they've got nothing to worry about!

lol

Everyone's done bad stuff, one day or another.

 

 

I think they should be able to do whatever they want and should certainly have access into anything related to politics they want/have a reason to want. That's the whole point of the First Amendment. If you've done something illegal, you should be prepared for them to dig it up and proclaim it to the world.

 

Except a lot of people don't seem to have the intelligence required to realize that the person these celebrities were in the past and the person they are now is beside the point.

The press should be able to publish what they want providing that it isn't libelous and isn't hate speech.

 

Like someone else said, do you want your kids looking up to someone who commits adultery? Do you want a president who did drugs, was an alcoholic, smoked, or still does?

 

I certainly don't want either of these things. Celebrities and in general famous people need to get used to this. If they've never done anything bad, they've got nothing to worry about!

 

I think somebody's wider achievements are far more important than one discrepancy thay've committed or flaw they have. Children should admire Tiger Woods (I presume he is the aldulterer you mentioned because he busted his backside to become the greatest golfer in history. Bush and Obama should be admired for their public service and for at least trying to improve things - regardless of whether you agree with their politics - not lambasted for being a former alcholic or a smoker. Would you really not vote for somebody because they have a minor vice which doesn't affect their ability to do the job? Most children don't live in a hermetically sealed world, when you talk about aldultery, smoking and drinking there are far more immediate influences ie. family and friends.