Many magazines have pictures of famous people on holiday or with their families. Is it acceptable for famous people to have less privacy than other people? v.2

Many think that the personal lives of well-known people might be violated by an intrusive media. Although the stated viewpoint is widespread, there are perhaps stronger reasons to argue against this opinion as will now be presented. Primarily, having privacy is a basic psychological need of any human being. Although people are social creatures, some psychologists have proved that a certain degree of privacy is needed to maintain mental and physical health. In fact, research which was conducted on such social animals as rats and chimps has decisively showcased that constant exposure to the observer has an adverse effect on the overall health condition of the objects. In addition, prominent individuals are also citizens; thus, they have a right to have personal life as much as anyone else, and the law protects this right. In other words, the law does not make a distinction between celebrities and people who are not considered famous. Consequently, violation of the law is punishable and reproachable. Finally, some might state that a lack of privacy is a price to be paid for being famous, and that when a person becomes popular, their personal lives automatically become interesting to the public and as a result this interest ought to be satisfied. Although there is a certain merit to this argument, the subject’s lack of control regarding what is revealed publicly is what negates this opinion. To sum up, famous people should not be deprived of their personal life because violation of privacy may have negative health consequences. Moreover, there are legal issues at stake, as the law has a clear protocol for all citizens, regardless of their social position.