The Cat's Out of the Bag: Tiger Woods and the Right to Privacy

Yesterday, on his web site, Tiger Woods' admitted to "transgressions" and wrote "I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves." He was also the highest-paid professional sportsman in 2008, with an income of approximately $110 million, from tournament earnings and various product endorsements, including Nike, AT&T, and Gillette. Though he has not formally admitted to an affair (or affairs), his clean cut image has certainly been well and truly tarnished. However, it's something else that he wrote that I think is of greater interest.

I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone . . . Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means . . . no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy . . . the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions. (My emphasis).

I was drawn to his phrase "Personal sins should not require press releases." I agree, up to a point. He certainly should not be required to broadcast to the whole world the intimate details of his private life and failings. However, as a man who has made his millions by choosing a very public career and lifestyle, he also cannot expect to have the same degree of privacy as you or I can. Indeed, the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right of media to disclose newsworthy items to the public that are of legitimate public interest. In fact, the relevant legal issue is whether the disclosure of the "private" fact is highly offensive to a reasonable person and whether it lacks legitimate public interest. Also, determining "legitimate public interest", at least in part, rests on the extent to which the person concerned, as a result of being famous or some other public status, has a reduced expectation of privacy.

So, if you were on a jury determining whether the press had invaded Tiger Woods' privacy by publishing all of its various reports, true or otherwise, would you determine that they have been guilty of invading his privacy or not? Is the media serving a legitimate public interest by publishing details of his affairs? Indeed, should a famous sportsman have any less right to privacy than any other American?

This is a difficult legal area and one that is, I think, heightened even more in today's cyberworld where information crosses the globe in a second and public information is more public than it has ever been.

As for Tiger, despite his clean cut image, his soiled cat is well and truly out of the bag and nothing he can do can ever put it back.