Pros and Cons

There are two sides of the argument about privacy rights of public officials, those who believe that public officials should have more privacy, and those who believe that they should not.

The pro privacy side argues that public officials are American citizens who should have just as much of a right to privacy as other Americans. The side argues that the public interest is not what is represented in most media, and instead that public officials privacy is invaded with intimate details about their lives. The press sensationalizes information about public officials to sell newspapers. This can unfairly ruin the reputations of public officials, causing unneeded conflict in their lives. The public does not need to know about public officials private lives, because great leaders can have messy personal lives and still be brilliant at their jobs, and vice versa. Public officials should not always be held to a higher standard than the public, as all people make mistakes. Public officials also become more and more concerned with image as their lives are greatly invaded.  

The con argument, states that public officials do not deserve more privacy. Public officials run for office with full knowledge that they will receive large amounts of attention, criticism, and possibly attacks from the other side of their race. The people have a right to know who they are voting for, who they put in power, and who represents them. The public needs to be able to trust they representatives to adequately represent them and stand up for their needs. To do this, the public needs to be able to see into the lives and character of their representatives. The public also pays for public officials salaries, and deserve to know where their money is going. The line between a public and private matter is also unclear. There is no law that specifically state what privacy public officials have a right to, so reporting a public officials illness, illegitimate child, or affair is not off limits to the media. The press is the watchdog of the government and has the specific job to keep politicians and public officials in line. This means reporting on the lives of public officials.  Freedom of the press is necessary for democracy, and is protected in the constitution. It cannot be limited to ensure the privacy of public officials.    

An Overview of the Privacy Rights for Public Officials

What right do public officials have to privacy? Do they have the right to complain about the attention and criticism they are given? Are the scandals about adultery and their private lives too invasive? Or should public officials expect to be given attention and criticism when they decide to run for office? Are public official's privacy rights limited because of the public's right to know where their tax money is going and who their representatives really are? Can public offficials be given more privacy, or would this limit the freedom of the press and restrict the power of the press as the watchdog of the government? These are the questions that come up when questioning the privacy rights of public officials.

I believe that the public's right to know about how their taxes are being spent and who they are trusting to represent them outweighs public official's right to privacy. Politicians and public officials know that they will be the the subject of scrutiny when they run for office. Media coverage on the lives of politicians gives the public insight into who they are really voting for, letting the people decide for themselves if these politicians can be trusted with representing the public. The press is the the watchdog of the government, and has been able to uncover abuses of power and scandals while covering public officials. Public officials cannot expect to be giving the same amount of privacy as the public once they decide to run for office.