"The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest. "<p>This is not only nearly impossible to define in the general case more importantly what is of legitimate interest to me is potentially different from what is of legitimate interest to you and only by allowing the general publication of facts is it possible for the information relevant to you and i to each flow freely.<p>" The design of the law must be to protect those persons with whose affairs the community has no legitimate concern, from being dragged into an undesirable and undesired publicity and to protect all persons, whatsoever; their position or station, from having matters which they may properly prefer to keep private, made public against their will."<p>If I intend to hire you to watch my kids, work in my store, allow you to hang out with my daughter etc etc I have an interest in information about you being available.<p>" The right of one who has remained a private individual, to prevent his public portraiture, presents the simplest case for such extension; the right to protect one's self from pen portraiture, from a discussion by the press of one's private affairs"<p>This is great if the press is a handful of newspapers instead of the reality in which it is all of us communicating to each other.<p>I could go on and on and on but the problem remains that the "right to privacy" so defined is fundamentally impossible to distinguish from a club to stop people spreading the truth.<p>It would be more useful to continue punishing liars and try to better protect people from being fired/discriminated against for their private lives and speech rather than providing the rich a better way to silence inconvenient truths.