It could be done only on principles of private justice, moral fitness, and public convenience, which, when applied to a new subject, make common law without a precedent ; much more when received and approved by usage. (Willes, J., in Millar v. Taylor 1) People has been able to get the information more quickly and easily by the development of technology, thereby information on anyone’s privacy can now be obtained quickly and easily. In particular, privacy of public figures including celebrities is increasingly deeper day by day, in Korea, there is a weak legal action against that. Legal action for general citizens' privacy is much more vulnerable. Authorized public fihures’ privacy is rapidly spreading through the media and the general public’s …show more content…
Politicians’ role is leading the country on the behalf of for the people. That the public has an interest in their private life is thought as a natural thing compared to a celebrity. But because politicians are also people and citizens of a country, so they have human rights and dignity. One of the examples of the violations of politicians’ privacy is that the media reported ‘a extramarital intercourse’ of Mitterrand (Dr. Son 4), the late French President. In a society which sees ‘a extramarital intercourse’ as a negative gaze, that the president of a country acted such an action could be a problem. But at the point that it doesn’t become the problem when he led the country, it seems to be the infringement of privacy which went to far. Another example can be said about a scandal of the former US President, Clinton (Dr. Son 4). That Clinton did not do an action which the head of the country had to do is also right to be criticised, but if it was really just reported for the right which the public know, the former US President, Clinton experienced the infringement of his privacy. There are very different opinions on the infringement of the politicians’ privacy rather than celebrities. The title of public figure seems to make even more so. But one should not simply claim the rights of citizens to know, is it not that they also should protect their dignity and human