Why is it ok for the media to invade people's privacy, but not ok the government or private citizens do?

Question

1st Amendment
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.
None of the other Amendments give any person or group superior rights to others. However, the media has used this Amendment on many occasions to do just that. There are many examples we see in everyday life anymore with all the ‘journalists’ and their constant raids and stalking of highly paid entertainers, there are also less noticed incidents such as back during the Haiti debacle when the media tapped private and government phone lines in order to find out information about where and when troops would be landing, causing the initial strikes by American Special Operations units to be cancelled at the last minute, but no media agencies were punished for this.

Answer 1

Ethically, it's not okay for anyone to invade the privacy of an innocent person. It's stupid and potentially dangerous to stalk celebrities, and many suits have been brought against various photographers and publications. However, we have the right to know what the government is doing-- because it's with our money. Governments steal from us, then use the fruits of their theft against us.
Anyone arguing that the 4th Amendment protects our privacy from the government is living under a rock. The 4th has been effectively nullified by SSNs, gun records, increasing search & seizure to look for a "probable cause", phone tapping, and the fact that the government is so vast and powerful that businesses are being forced to collude with bureaucrats and hand over what little privacy we had left.

Answer 2

The media has no greater protections or privileges than private citizens. Both are subject to criminal and civil liability based on their actions.

Invasion of privacy, intrusion on seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, defamation -- these are are all torts, and you can sue a newspaper or journalist just as easily as you can sue a private person. The only defense applicable is where the matter is one of public concern, or where the person affected is a public official. And then stricter standards apply.

Remember that the 1st Amendment protects freedom of expression, not freedom to intrude. And expression is only protected when it doesn't violate someone else's rights.

Why is the government not allowed to do the same thing? The 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable government intrusion. There is no similar constitutional limit against private intrusion, because the criminal and civil courts are perfectly suited to handle those issues. It's hard to sue the government, however, so there are rules to prohibit government intrusion.

Seems pretty straight forward, once you actually read the laws.

Answer 3

If by any chance you're in a situation where you're bleeding or choking to death on the floor, or if your coat has got stuck in a taxi door and the driver has started to drive off without noticing...........I really, think anyone would be ok with their privacy being invaded in any of those situations

Answer 4

Under the cover of FREEDOM OF SPEECH the PRESS is known as the FOURTH ESTATE and indulge in so called EX POSURE of PRIVATE LIFE in PUBLIC INTEREST!!!! I still cannot get over the chase of PRINCESS DIANA by the media people.
The MEDIA can afford to spend money to defend and argue the case engaging the TOP NOTCH lawyers in the WORLD.
But when STATES SECRETS are involved any exposure by media can land it or its reporters into trouble and no immunity is available but they may not reveal their source and undergo punishment even.
There are lots of medias who apologise openly where inadvertently private parties are affected based on reports, though I agree the damage is done and the cat is out of the box.

Answer 5

Because the government must adhere to strict laws based on the constitution. Whereas the media has freedom of the press, also held within the constitution.

Answer 6

Because, along with the Freedom of the Press, the media also conforms to a code of ethics. HA-HA-HA! It is true, but ironic :) Sorry; I'm a tad jaded.

See this swatch of Media Ethics Online

Answer 7

never confuse the stalkarazzi with legitimate journalists
i am all for reign in in the stalkarrazi as i believe they have abuses the 1st amendment and what they do is really not in the public's best interest, so any lawsuit brought to bear on them and any sort of law is well deserved, unfortunately such thing s will be overruled by activists judges who have gone aware of justice.

Answer 8

Arrogance of the media. Same as their "right" to publish classified info. Those that know classified info aren't allowed to confirm or deny information on the outside. Many times there is misleading info mixed in with the classified stuff.

Answer 9

And not just the media but how about the business sector too.

Answer 10

Because the government and private owners have a lot of money and they have a bunch of power so they can control whatever they want.
THOSE BASTARDS!!!