Celebrity, Privacy, and American Culture EDITOR: How do we reconcile the growing interest in "celebrity" (in the U.S. and other countries) with heightened concern for privacy? How much privacy is possible in societies obsessed with celebrities? JUDITH WAGNER DECEW: Public figures never have had the same expectation of privacy as other citizens. This was clear a century ago and remains so today. But celebrity status has grown, curiosity and obsession with celebrities have grown, and the intrusiveness of the press has grown. Surely, limits on information available to the public about "public" individuals conflicts with the American view of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. (Fred Schauer, dean of the Kennedy School of Government, has a nice essay forthcoming on this topic). In the past, the most obvious reason for a public figure having to expect to live a more public life, and therefore have a lower expectation of privacy, has focused on political representation. For anyone in a public office, or seeking election to one, it has been clear that the public has a right to know a good deal about the individual, in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to vote for that individual. The public has a reasonable expectation of knowing as much as possible about whatever information is relevant to the individual's suitability for office. But this presupposes that there is some standard for determining just what and how much information is really relevant for someone's service in public office. President Franklin Roosevelt and his staff felt that it was fine to conceal his polio and disabilities, and President Kennedy felt that he could do the same about his sex life. We know that today both of these issues would be deemed relevant to the press, and perhaps to the American public, in assessing an individual's fitness for office. Others have grappled with the question of whether or not to reveal information on mental illness, including therapy and shock treatments, or heart arrhythmia. But I do not believe there has ever been a careful assessment about what is morally and politically relevant information for the public and press to pursue in evaluating individuals for public office. Where do we draw the line? We know descriptively what has been revealed. We have no standard about what is normatively appropriate or necessary to reveal. PRISCILLA REGAN: I think our First Amendment traditions come into play. Concepts of libel and slander distinguish between public persons and ordinary individuals and accord public persons less privacy. If one propels oneself onto the public stage and courts attention, then one has a much weaker privacy claim. I think much of the interest in celebrities is actually manipulated by the celebrities, their agents, and the media, and so I have less sympathy for any privacy claims they make when they become offended as a result of attention they created. Correlatively, what about the ordinary person who videos and We have no standards on what is relevant for the press and public to know about candidates for political office. [JUDITH WAGNER DECEW] broadcasts her or his daily life on the Web? What does this say about our cultural sense of privacy? Or about generational differences in privacy? JUDITH WAGNER DECEW: For celebrities who are not politicians, I share Priscilla's view that the celebrities and their agents/managers manipulate the press and thus deserve a far lower expectation of privacy in their individual affairs. Why limit information disclosure if one is a celebrity? For the same reasons we all desire privacy -- to be able to maintain one's private "space" and the ability to live one's life free from the scrutiny, judgment, and prejudice of others, whether one calls it privacy or freedom or autonomy. These private spaces give one the opportunity to be creative and spontaneous and individualistic, even eccentric and nonconformist, as J. S. Mill would say. Nevertheless, the tabloids will continue to pay for anything juicy they can get, and the public seems to love it. Thus, the market and economics seem to be driving the decision about what is relevant, fair, and necessary information for public consumption about an individual, rather than a thoughtful debate followed by common understanding about what is-and is not-legitimate to reveal. Currently, the press and the public market (not anyone tuned into the moral and political issues) are in the driver's seat about what is fair and legitimate. If this is correct, then far less privacy is possible for celebrities in modern societies. Yet, a public obsessed with information on celebrities may well pay a price. Fewer will run for public office, or be willing to be media targets or celebrities in other ways, if their privacy is deemed irrelevant or nonexistent or waived. HERB STRENTZ: Two contradictory thoughts on the celebrity question. First, the issue of "celebrity privacy" is almost irrelevant to serious privacy problems, because so many celebrities traffic in the bizarre and attention getting but want to play entirely by their rules. Further, many celebrities have the resources to protect themselves whenever they wish, far more than other victims of intrusion. The second point is that, in troubling ways, the celebrity question is on point and not irrelevant. I rephrased John's question a bit: Can democracy survive with such obsession with celebrities? When Princess Diana died, part of the press coverage dealt with how she had publicized the "land mines issue" -- that this troubling social, humanitarian problem might have escaped serious press and public attention without her. As a journalist/journalism educator, I find that damning -- i.e., that the news media would not have been aware of the land mines issue without Princess Di leading the way. What an indictment of contemporary journalism! But it looks like only more of the same is in store for us as "Infotainment" seems to be the order of the day. Small wonder that people have little respect for much of the news media today. JUDITH WAGNER DECEW: I found Herb's thoughts on the celebrity question very provocative. There is good reason to think about the dangers to democracy resulting from an obsession with celebrities. How complicated the clash between privacy, First Amendment rights, and freedom of the press has become. Spring 2000 Issue Home | The 20th Century | Celebrity and Privacy | Privacy Abuses Driver's Privacy Protection Act | Legislation | Resources | Contributors Credits/Disclaimers| John Ryan Leaves ABA Focus on Law Studies Home | Subscribe to Focus | Questions/Ordering Back Issues