In the aftermath of the untimely death of Princess Diana a timeworn issue re-plays itself like a tired re-run of "The Honeymooners." Does the media go too far? Maybe. But like any other commodity, supply and demand go hand and glove. Whether a high profile celebrity or an every-day Joe, we sit glued to our chairs as the nightly news somberly announces society's latest barbarity. We eagerly snatch up the tabloids as these mudslingers breathlessly divulge their version of the most recent Hollywood gossip. The fact is that America has become obsessed with the goings on in other people's lives. Greedy consumers of the First Amendment, we march defiantly under the banner of our "right to know", but do we have just cause? Differences and difficulties in interpretation have characterized much of the later history of the First Amendment and historians continue to debate what the nation's founders meant to include when they wrote that there shall be "no law" abridging the freedom of speech or press. Today the U. S. Supreme Court blindly inches its way across the tightrope of censorship. Laws prohibiting obscenity and indecency have been successfully incorporated and public senti

"Do we need to know?" Editorial. Current Events Sep. 1997: 3.

"Miller v. California." Grolier Encyclopedia. 1996

Alter, Jonathan. "Dying for the age of Diana." Newsweek Sep. 1997: 39.

Alter, Jonathan. "In the time of the tabs." Newsweek Jun. 1997: 32.

Is this "Freedom of the Press?" Do the people have a "right to know?" Those against restricting journalists say that freedom of the press is crucial to the freedom of our country. They say that restricting the press is unconstitutional because it limits citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech (Current Events 3). But free speech should express ideas and promote exchange. It should not be used as a vehicle to promote the promulgation of vicious gossip and hearsay. These advocates also argue that celebrities have no right to complain about the press. They give interviews to the press to promote their movies, books, and other projects. Why then, ask critics, should celebrities complain about the press (Current Events 3)? But the welcome interviews do not constitute blanket authorization for any future time. They say that the press has an obligation to seek out the truth -- to investigate and to find the real story. But the word "story" implies entertainment value, and one person's private business should not be put on display for public entertainment without explicit consent. Does Freedom of the Press mean that the press should be allowed to cover whatever it wants to cover? In his book Privacy and Freedom (1967), the political scientist Alan Westin suggested that privacy be defined as the right of persons to control the distribution of information about themselves. Using this definition, invasion of privacy becomes the attempt to gather information about a person (and sometimes making that information public) that the person expects to be disclosed, if at all, only as he or she wishes (Grolier Encyclopedia 1996, privacy, invasion of).

Some common words found in the essay are:
Freedom Press, OJ Simpson, Princess Diana, Current Events, Mary Albert, Alter Dying, TV ABC's, Supreme Court, Montel Williams, Jonathan Schmitz, freedom press, grolier encyclopedia, grolier encyclopedia 1996, encyclopedia 1996, douglas 19, current events, invasion privacy, mainstream media, celebrities complain press, nation 111, sep 1997, media coverage, current events 3,
Approximate Word count = 2047
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)